People v. Beam case brief
624 N.W.2d 764
CASE SYNOPSIS:
The State appealed an order of the Wayne Circuit Court (Michigan) dismissing an information charging defendant with owning a dog, trained or used for fighting, that caused the death of a person on the grounds that the statute was unconstitutionally vague.
FACTS:
CONCLUSION:
The judgment was reversed, because the statute proscribing owning a dog trained or used for fighting was not unconstitutionally vague as it clearly provided notice and fair warning to defendant that he owned such an animal at his own peril and could be held criminally liable if the animal killed a person.
---
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?
624 N.W.2d 764
CASE SYNOPSIS:
The State appealed an order of the Wayne Circuit Court (Michigan) dismissing an information charging defendant with owning a dog, trained or used for fighting, that caused the death of a person on the grounds that the statute was unconstitutionally vague.
FACTS:
-A woman was
mauled to death by defendant's pit bulls while he was incarcerated.
-He was indicted for owning a dog trained or used for fighting that caused the death of a person, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.49(10) (Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.244(10)).
-He was indicted for owning a dog trained or used for fighting that caused the death of a person, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.49(10) (Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.244(10)).
-Neighbors testified the
dogs had been trained to fight and that they had seen dogfights
staged in defendant's back yard.
-Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
the case, arguing the statute was unconstitutionally vague.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
-The trial court granted the motion and the State appealed.
HOLDING:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
-The trial court granted the motion and the State appealed.
HOLDING:
-The court
affirmed, holding the statute was not unconstitutionally vague as it
clearly provided notice and fair warning to defendant that owning
such an animal subjected him to criminal liability if the animal
killed a person.
RULES:
-A statute can be challenged for vagueness where it was over-broad and impinged on First Amendment freedoms, it does not provide fair notice of the conduct proscribed, or where it is so indefinite that it confers unstructured and unlimited discretion on the trier of fact to determine whether the law has been violated.
RULES:
-A statute can be challenged for vagueness where it was over-broad and impinged on First Amendment freedoms, it does not provide fair notice of the conduct proscribed, or where it is so indefinite that it confers unstructured and unlimited discretion on the trier of fact to determine whether the law has been violated.
CONCLUSION:
The judgment was reversed, because the statute proscribing owning a dog trained or used for fighting was not unconstitutionally vague as it clearly provided notice and fair warning to defendant that he owned such an animal at his own peril and could be held criminally liable if the animal killed a person.
---
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