State v. Kaneakua case brief
Case Citation: 597 P.2d 59
Subject: Animal Law
CASE SYNOPSIS: The state
appealed from a decision of the District Court of the First Circuit,
Waianae Division (Hawaii), which granted defendants' motions to
dismiss the prosecutions against them for cruelty to animals, in
violation of Hawaii Penal Code, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 1109(1)(d), as a
result of their participation in cockfights. The district court found
that the statute was unconstitutional.
FACTS:
-The defendants stipulated that they were involved in cockfights.
-Numerous prosecutions for violations of § 1109(1)(d), part of Hawaii's cruelty to animals statute, were dismissed on grounds that the statute was unconstitutional, and the state appealed.
-The court reversed the dismissal on appeal, and remanded.
HOLDING
-The court held that the statute was constitutional and did not deny defendants due process of law.
ANALYSIS
-The court found that the statute was not vague, and was sufficiently definite to satisfy due process with regard to the charge against defendants.
-Further, the statute was not overly broad as applied to defendants.
-Defendants' participation in cockfighting, which was prohibited by the statute, was not protected conduct.
-The court also stated that defendants did not have standing to challenge the statute on grounds of vagueness or over-broad as applied to hypothetical situations.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the decision, which had dismissed the charges of cruelty to animals for cockfighting on grounds that the cruelty statute was unconstitutional. The court held that the statute was not vague or overbroad, and remanded.
FACTS:
-The defendants stipulated that they were involved in cockfights.
-Numerous prosecutions for violations of § 1109(1)(d), part of Hawaii's cruelty to animals statute, were dismissed on grounds that the statute was unconstitutional, and the state appealed.
-The court reversed the dismissal on appeal, and remanded.
HOLDING
-The court held that the statute was constitutional and did not deny defendants due process of law.
ANALYSIS
-The court found that the statute was not vague, and was sufficiently definite to satisfy due process with regard to the charge against defendants.
-Further, the statute was not overly broad as applied to defendants.
-Defendants' participation in cockfighting, which was prohibited by the statute, was not protected conduct.
-The court also stated that defendants did not have standing to challenge the statute on grounds of vagueness or over-broad as applied to hypothetical situations.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the decision, which had dismissed the charges of cruelty to animals for cockfighting on grounds that the cruelty statute was unconstitutional. The court held that the statute was not vague or overbroad, and remanded.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment