{
  "id": 1664663,
  "name": "STATE of Arkansas v. Herbert KIMBROUGH & Phillip BRYANT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Kimbrough",
  "decision_date": "1979-03-12",
  "docket_number": "CR 78-171",
  "first_page": "289",
  "last_page": "292",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "265 Ark. 289"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "578 S.W.2d 26"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "146 S.W. 862",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1912,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ark. 336",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1351960
      ],
      "year": 1912,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/103/0336-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Am. Rep. 43",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "Am. Rep.",
      "year": 1883,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ark. 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1896181
      ],
      "year": 1883,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/41/0410-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "486 S.W. 2d 65",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1627400,
        1627382
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/253/0390-01",
        "/ark/253/0290-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 Ark. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1627400
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/253/0390-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 277,
    "char_count": 4026,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.88,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0628536644414404
    },
    "sha256": "af5680b43bc1da10388951e505d5ecbb6444979bf8db9a291e3ceadc27cd9851",
    "simhash": "1:47713b0a840c5a64",
    "word_count": 671
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:31:48.026206+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree. Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Holt, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of Arkansas v. Herbert KIMBROUGH & Phillip BRYANT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThe State appeals this criminal case, as it may by virtue of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-2720 (Repl. 1977), conceding that the appellees may not be retried on the charges. See State v. Stringfellow, 253 Ark. 390, 486 S.W. 2d 65 (1972).\nHerbert Kimbrough and Phillip Bryant were convicted in the Little Rock Municipal Court of disrupting and disturbing the lawful assembly of the Liberty Hill Missionary Baptist Church in violation of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-2908 (Repl. 1977). Each was fined $50.00 and appealed to the circuit court.\nDuring the circuit court trial, before the State finished examining the first witness, the judge dismissed the charges. This was done when the prosecuting attorney declined to offer further proof in view of the judge\u2019s ruling on points of law.\nThe judge made two rulings which are the subject of this appeal. First, he ruled that membership of these appellees in the church was relevant; their membership was a fact in issue, disputed by the parties. Next, he ruled that the church body would have to \u201cexhaust the remedies\u201d of the organization before these appellees could be charged.\nWe cannot say on this record whether the appellees were guilty as charged because the trial was not concluded. In any event, there was a confrontation between Kimbrough and Bryant and the pastor in the Liberty Hill Missionary Baptist Church during services which resulted in the charges. The pastor, John Miles, was called as the State\u2019s first witness and during his testimony it became an issue as to whether these appellees were, in fact, members of the organization. The attorney for the appellees made objections to the State\u2019s proceeding, arguing that before the State could prosecute these individuals for the charges, the organization must exhaust its remedies, that is, hold a hearing and expel the appellees from the church before they could be charged with criminal misconduct. The trial judge agreed. No doubt the judge was prompted to do this because the testimony of the pastor regarding the misconduct of the appellees was unimpressive to the trial judge at that point.\nWe find that the judge was in error in his rulings. First, membership in a church or organization is not necessarily the controlling factor as to whether a person has committed a crime at a meeting. Neither would a church or organization have to \u201cexhaust the remedies\u201d of the organization, that is, conduct a hearing and discharge a person, if a member, before the State could prosecute an individual for criminal misconduct. Either a member of a stranger can be guilty of unlawfully disrupting a lawful assembly.\nSuch charges for disorderly conduct are not unprecedented. In two cases we have reviewed charges for disorderly conduct in a church meeting. In both instances these charges were brought under a statute which was a predecessor to our present law. State v. Wright, 41 Ark. 410, 48 Am. Rep. 43 (1883); Walker v. State, 103 Ark. 336, 146 S.W. 862 (1912).\nOur holding in no way affects the right of an individual or a member of any organization to participate in any way in an organization or to voice disapproval of an organization in any way during a meeting. It is simply that a member\u2019s conduct during church meetings or similar public meetings is not immune from prosecution if that conduct is criminal in nature. While caution should be exercised in bringing such charges against a member or a stranger accused of disrupting a public meeting, the fact remains that membership alone and the internal remedies of an organization are not, as a matter of law, determinative of one\u2019s guilt for criminal misconduct.\nFor the orderly administration of justice, we declare that error was committed.\nError declared.\nWe agree. Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Holt, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Catherine Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.",
      "No brief for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE of Arkansas v. Herbert KIMBROUGH & Phillip BRYANT\nCR 78-171\n578 S.W. 2d 26\nOpinion delivered March 12, 1979\n(Division II)\nBill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Catherine Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.\nNo brief for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0289-01",
  "first_page_order": 313,
  "last_page_order": 316
}