The opinion
SUMMERS, Justice
(dissenting).
This court is limited in the scope of its review in criminal matters by Article VII, Section 10 of the LSA-Constitution of this State “to questions of law only.” Furthermore, in matters of this nature, we should not be unmindful of the fundamental right accorded to the jury under our law to determine the question of guilt or innocence. This right is assured by Article XIX, Section 9, of our Constitution in these words:
“The jury in all criminal cases shall be the judges of the law and of the facts on the question of guilt or innocence, having been charged as to the law applicable to the case by the presiding judge.”
*565 Although it is recognized in our jurisprudence 1 that a proper interpretation of the foregoing constitutional provisions permits a complaint that a conviction based upon “no evidence at all” presents the question of law of whether it be lawful to convict an accused without any proof whatsoever as to his guilt, it is firmly established, and this court has consistently adhered to the proposition, that: “[I]t is only when there is no evidence at all upon some essential element of the crime charged that (the court) may set aside a verdict * * State v. Holder, 159 La. 82 , 105 So. 232, 233 (1925). See, also, State v. McDonell, 208 La. 602 , 23 So.2d 230 (1945), and authorities cited therein. But, “[wjhere there is some evidence to sustain the conviction, no matter hozv little, this court cannot pass upon the stifficiency thereof. That comes within the exclusive province of the trial judge and jury.” State v. Gani, 157 La. 231 , 102 So. 318 (1924). See, also, State v. McDonell, supra, and authorities cited therein.
The essential element of the crime charged, concerning which the majority has held there is no evidence, is that element of the crime of criminal anarchy which requires that the organization in question, or the person who is a member thereof, advocate “opposition * * * (to) the government * * * by * * * unlawful means. * * *” LSA-R.S. 14:115.
Troy Bland Cade admits to a record of law violations, including vagrancy and possession of narcotics (marijuana).
The Muslim cult, also known as Islam, of which he is the “Minister” in Monroe is a militantNegro group organized on a national basis holding meetings where its members expound the supremacy of the Negro race. White people are referred to in their doctrine as “devils”. They are strong believers in the separation of the races and consider the integration of the races to be contrary to the laws of nature and the laws of their God. They are strongly antichristian and feel that Christianity and the government of the United States have been in part responsible for the slavery, hardships and suffering they have endured. The Muslim leaders advocate a program whereby they expect the Federal Government to “turn over” to them enough land within the United States to accomodate the 20,000,000 Negroes of this country in order that they might live separate and apart from the whites as a “nation within a nation.” This territory, it is preached, is due the Negroes because they have lived in this country as slaves for 310 years “without a pay day” and that should be payment enough for the lands they feel they are entitled to.
*567 The board introduced in evidence, a copy of which is attached to the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice HAMLIN, is found in all the meeting places — “Temples”-—of the Muslim group throughout the United States. It is kept on prominent display and is symbolic of their - teachings. This board formed the primary evidence upon which the State seeks to sustain the instant prosecution.
If the symbolism of the board is subject to the interpretation that what is taught thereby is “opposition” to the government by “unlawful means”, then that board constitutes “some” evidence and this court cannot adjudge the sufficiency thereof. It is my opinion that it is subject to the interpretation that opposition to the government by unlawful means is a tenet of the Muslim group. Otherwise, why is the question asked: Will the United States (represented by the United States flag) or Islam (represented by the other flag) survive the final conflict between these two ideals — the War of Armageddon (an unlawful means) ? There seems to be no doubt that the designers of the board sought to instill into those who viewed the board a desire for “Islam” to survive; for beneath that flag are listed “Freedom Justice Equality”, whereas beneath the United States flag are listed “Slavery Hell Death, etc.” The inference to be gained is that the government represented by the United States flag should not survive, that is, it should be destroyed and a final conflict (War of Armageddon) will be the means of accomplishing that end.
The only question is, Do these facts, thus briefly recited, and the board constitute “some” evidence, “no matter how little”, of the essential elements in question of the crime charged?
There is some evidence to sustain the essential elements of guilt in this case. It may very well be that this court would not consider that evidence sufficient to support a finding of guilt if it were accorded the right to weigh the evidence, but it cannot be said that there is no evidence at all. The question of guilt or innocence in such cases is one to be decided by jurors — not judges.
I respectfully dissent.
. State v. Copling, 242 La. 199 , 135 So.2d 271 (1961); State v. Garner, 241 La. 275 , 128 So.2d 655 (1961).