State v. Witham case brief
876 A.2d 40
---
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?
876 A.2d 40
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant
appealed a judgment by the Kennebec County Superior Court (Maine)
that convicted him of aggravated cruelty to animals pursuant to Me.
Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 1031(1-B)(B) (Supp. 2003); defendant
claimed that §1031(1-B) was unconstitutionally void for
vagueness.
FACTS: Defendant, who claimed to be allergic to cats, got into an argument with his girlfriend over whether her cat, which was pregnant, would reside with them in her apartment. Later that evening, defendant put the cat in a cat carrier on the truck seat next to him. After another argument with the girlfriend, defendant dropped the cat carrier out of the truck's window and began to drive away. While maneuvering around another car, defendant ran over the cat carrier and killed the cat. The supreme judicial court held that defendant was not left to guess whether his conduct violated § 1031(1-B). He needed only to ask himself whether a reasonable person would find his conduct to be morally debased, posing a high degree of risk, and manifesting a total lack of concern for the cat's death or suffering. Accordingly, § 1031(1-B) was not void for vagueness.
CONCLUSION: The judgment was affirmed.
FACTS: Defendant, who claimed to be allergic to cats, got into an argument with his girlfriend over whether her cat, which was pregnant, would reside with them in her apartment. Later that evening, defendant put the cat in a cat carrier on the truck seat next to him. After another argument with the girlfriend, defendant dropped the cat carrier out of the truck's window and began to drive away. While maneuvering around another car, defendant ran over the cat carrier and killed the cat. The supreme judicial court held that defendant was not left to guess whether his conduct violated § 1031(1-B). He needed only to ask himself whether a reasonable person would find his conduct to be morally debased, posing a high degree of risk, and manifesting a total lack of concern for the cat's death or suffering. Accordingly, § 1031(1-B) was not void for vagueness.
CONCLUSION: The judgment was affirmed.
---
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