Harris v. State

Marbury, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Cleveland Harris, appellant, was tried on two charges of assault and one of disorderly conduct. He elected a nonjury trial. Judge Taylor found him not guilty on both charges of assault, but guilty of disorderly conduct, for which a fine of $25 was imposed.

This appeal is taken from that judgment and sentence. On Sunday, September 29, 1963, the Meat Cutters Union, Local No. 199, held a meeting at the Teamsters Hall in Salisbury. During the course of that meeting, appellant, a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who was not associated with the union or an employee at the Campbell Soup plant where it operated, tried to enter the hall, which subsequently caused the adjournment of the meeting. Afterward, Harris was approached by Jack Birl, a personal friend and president of Local No. 199, who invited him to attend and speak at the local’s next meeting on October 6.

The meeting of October 6 was scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. Appellant arrived at the hall a half-hour early. He was greeted by Birl, who told him that his invitation to attend had been revoked that morning by the vice-president of the International, explaining that the meeting had been called to elect new officers and was closed to all non-members. However, appellant did not leave the premises, but approached one of the two women checking membership lists and sought entrance to the meeting.

An argument ensued and Birl came out of the hall at the checker’s request, to again explain to Harris that his invitation had been withdrawn. Nevertheless, appellant said: “I’m coming in.” After Birl returned to the meeting, Harris attempted to enter the hall. He had been standing on a small porch at the entrance and moved through the door where he was stopped by ³⁰² the chief of police, William Chatham, whose assistance had been requested a short time earlier by the manager of the hall. Harris went back outside without any trouble.

At this time, the chief stationed two officers at the door with instructions to keep Harris and all other non-members out of the local meeting. During the afternoon, appellant intermittently addressed a crowd of twenty-five to thirty Negroes that had congregated in front of the hall. From the porch, in a loud voice audible on the street, Harris yelled anti-racial invections against the police. Shortly after 4 p.m., three to five members came out of the meeting and shouted to appellant to come in, whereupon he told the officers that he was going in.

One of the officers did not understand what the members had shouted, and suggested that Harris wait until he could find out whether or not it was all right for him to enter. However, Harris persisted, pushing the officer three to four feet into the hall. He was then placed under arrest but he kept shoving. A second officer came to the aid of the first and, in the scuffle, was hit in the eye by the appellant’s elbow.

Finally, Harris and an officer fell from the porch to the checkers’ table, where the struggle ceased and he was taken away. The appellant first contends that the lower court committed reversible error in excluding evidence offered to show that the members voted favorably to permit him to enter the meeting. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether or not Harris’ exclusion from the meeting was put to a vote. Birl testified that it was not, while two other witnesses testified that it was.

Proffers made of nine additional witnesses were objected to by the State and sustained by the trial court. Appellant claims that the testimony of these nine witnesses was admissible to contradict or impeach Birl’s statement. The general rule is that a witness may be contradicted or impeached by other witnesses on such matters and facts as are likely to affect his credibility. Fikewise a witness may be cross-examined for the same purpose.

Kan tor v. Ash, 215 Md. 285 , 137 A. 2d 661 ; Mahan v. State, 172 Md. 373 , 191 Atl. 575 . However, an exception to this rule is that a witness may not be impeached or contradicted by testimony or cross-examination in respect to facts that are