State v. Wiggins, 174
| Decision Date | 13 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 174,174 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Georgia WIGGINS, Donald Martin Cooper, Lewis Cherry, Ervin Cherry, GoldenFrinks, James Speller, J. Alfred Cherry, Clifton Jordan, David Bond, HarveyRandolph Speller, Jr., George L. Rountree, Tim Hayes Jordan, Nathaniel Lee, Jr. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Deputy Atty. Gen. R. Moody, for the State.
The pertinent provisions of G.S. § 14--273 are:
'If any person shall wilfully interrupt or disturb any public or private school * * * either within or without the place where such * * * school is held * * * he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction, be fined or imprisoned or both in the discretion of the court.'
The defendants argue in their brief that this statute is void because its prohibitions are uncertain, vague or indefinite, under the rule applied by this Court in State v. Furio, 267 N.C. 353, 148 S.E.2d 275. They argue in their brief that the statute contains no definition of 'interrupt' or of 'disturb' and, consequently, men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and thus be left in doubt as to what conduct is prohibited. It is difficult to believe that the defendants are as mystified as to the meaning of these ordinary English words as they profess to be in their brief. Clearly, they have grossly underestimated the powers of comprehension possessed by 'men of common intelligence.' Nevertheless, we treat this contention as having been seriously made.
It is elementary that in the construction of a statute words are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning unless the context, or the history of the statute, requires otherwise. Victory Cab Co. v. City of Charlotte, 234 N.C. 572, 68 S.E.2d 433; In re Nissen's Estate, 4 Cir., 345 F.2d 230. While the meaning of 'interrupt' and of 'disturb' is perhaps more easily understood than defined with precision, resort to Webster's Dictionary reveals that 'interrupt' means 'to break the uniformity or continuity of; to break in upon an action,' and 'disturb' means 'to throw into disorder.' For those who are unhappy without citation to authorities of the type customarily cited in judicial opinions, we refer to Black's Law Dictionary and to Watkins v. Kaolin Manufacturing Co., 131 N.C. 536, 42 S.E. 983, 60 L.R.A. 617, where this Court said that an allegation in a complaint for personal injury that the plaintiff had been 'disturbed in body' must be understood to mean that 'her body was thrown into a state of disorder, and thereby injured.'
In Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 69 S.Ct. 448, 93 L.Ed. 513, the Supreme Court of the United States, speaking through Mr. Justice Reed, in sustaining a conviction in the courts of the State of New Jersey for violation of an ordinance forbidding the use of sound trucks emitting 'loud and raucous' sound, said:
When the words 'interrupt' and 'disturb' are used in conjunction with the word 'school,' they mean to a person of ordinary intelligence a substantial interference with, disruption of and confusion of the operation of the school in its program of instruction and training of students there enrolled. We found no difficulty in applying this statute, in accordance with this construction, to the activities of a group of white defendants in State v. Guthrie, 265 N.C. 659, 144 S.E.2d 891. Obviously, the statute applies in the same manner regardless of the race of the defendant. In State v. Ramsay, 78 N.C. 448, in affirming a conviction for the similar offense of disturbing public worship, this Court, speaking through Smith, C.J., said:
'It is not open to dispute whether the acts of the defendant were a disturbance in the sense that subjects him to a criminal prosecution, and that the jury was warranted in so finding, when they had the admitted effect of breaking up the congregation and frustrating altogether the purposes for which it had convened.'
Giving the words of G.S. § 14--273 their plain and ordinary meaning, it is apparent that the elements of the offense punishable under this statute are: (1) Some act or course of conduct by the defendant, within or without the school; (2) an actual, material interference with, frustration of or confusion in, part or all of the program of a public or private school for the instruction or training of students enrolled therein and in attendance thereon, resulting from such act or conduct; and (3) the purpose or intent on the part of the defendant that his act or conduct have that effect. One, who has reached the age of responsibility for his acts and who is not shown to be under disability of mind, is presumed to intend the natural and normal consequences of his acts and conduct. State v. Ramsay, supra. Nothing else appearing, the defendant's motive for doing wilfully an act forbidden by statute is no defense to the charge of violation of such statute. Cox v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 85 S.Ct. 476, 13 L.Ed.2d 487; Commonwealth v. Anderson, 272 Mass. 100, 172 N.E. 114, 69 A.L.R. 1097; 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 85.
Each warrant in the present case charges the defendant named therein in plain and precise language with each element of this statutory offense at the specified time and place by the specified conduct of picketing in front of the school, which picketing interfered with classes at the school. Each warrant is sufficiently specific to protect the defendant named therein from being placed again in jeopardy for the same offense. Consequently, the motion to quash the warrants was properly overruled unless the defendants had, as they contend they did have, a lawful right to engage in the specified conduct, notwithstanding the statute.
The uncontradicted evidence of the State, if true, as it must be deemed to be in passing upon a motion for judgment of nonsuit, is sufficient to show that the defendants, other than Frinks, intentionally paraded back and forth in front of the specified public school building and grounds in the immediate vicinity of a class then in progress on the school grounds. The evidence likewise shows that Frinks intentionally aided, abetted, directed and counseled the marching. The marchers carried placards or signs. These signs were utterly meaningless except on the assumption that they related to some controversy between the defendants and the administration of the school, specifically Principal Singleton. Presumably, they were deemed by the defendants sufficient to convey some idea to students or teachers in the school. The site was the edge of a rural road running in front of the school grounds, with only two residences in the vicinity. There is nothing to indicate that the marchers intended or desired to communicate any idea whatsoever to travelers along the highway, or to any person other than students and teachers in the Southwestern High School. As a direct result of their activities, the work of the class in bricklaying was terminated because the teacher could not retain the attention of his students, and disorder was created in the classrooms and hallways of the school building itself. Consequently, the motion for nonsuit was properly overruled unless the defendants had, as they contend, the lawful right so to interrupt and disturb this public school, notwithstanding the provisions of the statute.
The contention of the defendants that the court committed error in admitting evidence as to the conduct of the students in the bricklaying class and in the school building in response to the marching of the defendants must be deemed frivolous. An essential element of the offense charged in the warrants is the actual interruption and disturbance of the program of the school. Obviously, this can be shown only by evidence of the effect of the defendants' conduct upon the activities of the teachers and students of the school. The witnesses, who testified concerning this, related their own observations of what happened upon the school grounds and within the school building while the conduct of the defendants was in progress, as contrasted with the good order which prevailed prior to the commencement of the marching and after the departure of the defendants. Such evidence was clearly material and competent.
When the defendants challenged the array of regular jurors summoned for the term, on the ground of unconstitutional discrimination against members of their race in the selection of names to go into the jury box from which the panel was drawn, the trial judge conducted a hearing and heard all of their evidence upon that matter. Upon this evidence, he found that a disproportionately small number of names of Negroes had been included in the box. He thereupon ordered that no member of the regular jury panel be called as a juror for the trial of these cases and directed the sheriff to summon a special venire of fifty persons 'without regard to race.' This was done and from that panel the jury which tried and convicted the defendants was chosen, six of those jurors being Negroes. The contention of the defendants that it was error to order such special venire is without merit. The procedure so followed by the trial judge is expressly authorized by G.S. § 9--11, and the contention of the defendants that tales jurors can be called only to supplement an insufficient number of regular jurors is refuted by the very case they cite in their own brief, State v. Manship, 174 N.C. 798, 94 S.E. 2, in which this Court, speaking through Clark, C.J., said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castro v. Superior Court
...step in such a procedure.'26 We say nothing about vagueness. A similar statute withstood an attack on that ground in State v. Wiggins, 272 N.C. 147, 158 S.E.2d 37. There, however, the statute made it illegal to 'interrupt or disturb' any school. Although the distinction between the twin vic......
-
Com. v. Bohmer
...West v. State, 105 Ark. 175, 179, 150 S.W. 695 (1912); while North Carolina appears to hold to the contrary. State v. Wiggins, 272 N.C. 147, 154, 158 S.E.2d 37 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1028, 88 S.Ct. 1418, 20 L.Ed.2d 285 (1968).11 The entire instruction on wilfulness consisted of the ......
-
State v. Sparrow
...have been able to interpret and apply our juvenile statutes uniformly in numerous cases including In re Burrus, supra; State v. Wiggins, 272 N.C. 147, 158 S.E.2d 37, cert. den. 390 U.S. 1028, 88 S.Ct. 1418, 20 L.Ed.2d 285; Winner v. Brice, 212 N.C. 294, 193 S.E. 400; In re Coston, 187 N.C. ......
-
Corporation of Haverford College v. Reeher
...they warn a person of ordinary intelligence against substantially interfering with its operation and program: State v. Wiggins, 272 N.C. 147, 158 S.E.2d 37, 42 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1028, 88 S.Ct. 1418, 20 L.Ed.2d 285 In McAlpine v. Reese, 309 F.Supp. 136 (E.D.Mich.1970)15 an ordin......