Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH v. HAUGH (09/11/69)

decided: September 11, 1969.

COMMONWEALTH
v.
HAUGH, APPELLANT



Appeal from judgment of sentence of Criminal Court of Centre County, No. 370 of 1967, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Rochelle Janoff and Stephen H. Haugh.

COUNSEL

Harry E. Sprogell, for appellant.

Charles C. Brown, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, and Cercone, JJ. (Spaulding, J., absent). Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 215 Pa. Super. Page 161]

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Disposition

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J.:

Appellant was convicted for violation of the Act of June 24, 1939, P. L. 872, as amended, 18 P.S. ยง 4211, which provides: "Whoever, in any manner, for exhibition or display, places or causes to be placed any word, . . . upon any flag, . . . of the United States . . .; or exposes or causes to be exposed to public view any such flag, . . . or publicly or privately mutilates, defaces, defiles or tramples upon, or casts contempt either by words or act upon, any such flag, standard, color or ensign, is guilty of a misdemeanor. . . .

This section does not . . . apply to any patriotic or political demonstration or decorations."

More specifically, appellant was charged with having ". . . exposed to public view the flag of The United States of America upon which was printed, 'Make Love Not War' and 'The New American Revolutionaries.'" This act was part of a demonstration conducted at an annual July Fourth parade in State College, Pennsylvania by several young people to protest United States involvement in the Vietnam War. All the participants in this demonstration were arrested. Appellant was tried before a judge sitting without a jury. He was found guilty and this appeal followed.

Appellant argues that the statute is unconstitutional because it violates the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.