State v. Bryant, 4667
Decision Date | 09 July 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 4667,4667 |
Citation | 241 S.W.2d 473,219 Ark. 313 |
Parties | STATE v. BRYANT. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Ike Murry, Atty. Gen., Arnold Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Leffel Gentry, Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellee was arrested and charged with a violation of Act 151 of 1951, which requires certain signal devices on trucks of certain dimensions and exemptions other trucks from the operation of the Act, although such exempted trucks may come within the named dimensions. The trial court held the Act to be void. The State has appealed. Act 151 of 1951 amends § 75-619, Ark.Stats., and provides:
The constitutionality of the Act is challenged with the assertion that the Act violates Amendment No. 14 to the Constitution of Arkansas prohibiting the passage of special Acts, and Section 18 of Article 2 of the Constitution of Arkansas, providing that 'the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.' Also, the Act is challenged on the ground that it is vague, indefinite, and not enforceable in a uniform manner. 'The courts require a Statute to be definite and reasonable.' 5 Am.Jur. 532.
'A statute making it unlawful to operate an automobile the front lights of which project a light of such glare and brilliancy as seriously to interfere with the sight of, or temporarily blind the vision of, a driver of a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction is obnoxious to the rule which requires some degree of certainty in informing one accused of crime of the nature of the accusation against him, since glare and brilliancy are not described by any standard that is certain and that may be known in advance by the citizen.' 5 Am.Jur. 533.
That part of the 1951 Act which applies to 'small farm vehicles' is so vague and indefinite that it would be wholly impractical to enforce it. A person is entitled to know when he is violating the law. A 'small farm vehicle' is not defined in the Statute nor does the Statute provide as to how it is to be determined whether a farm vehicle is small. A court and jury in one section of the State might determine a certain vehicle to be small, and, in another section of the State, a court and jury might find the same vehicle to be large. Assuming that a very large vehicle could be definitely classified as large and a very small vehicle could be definitely classified as small, no one would know where the dividing line would be. One of the leading cases on the subject is that of Ex parte, Jackson, 45 Ark. 158. That case involves the constitutionality of the revised Statute which made it a misdemeanor to 'commit any act injurious to the public health or public morals, or to the perversion or obstruction of public justice, or the due administration of the law.' There, Mr. Justice Eakin, speaking for the court, said:
Likewise in the case at bar, whether a person had violated the Act would depend on the idea of the court and jury as to when a vehicle is large or small, without the law furnishing any guide in that respect. Snow v. Riggs, 172 Ark. 835, 290 S.W. 591, 592.
In Casey v. Casey, 142 Ark. 246, 218 S.W. 678, Ex parte Jackson, supra, was cited with approval on the point of uncertainty. Green v. Blanchard, 138 Ark. 137, 211 S.W. 375, 378, 5 A.L.R. 84, also cited the Jackson case with approval and added:
'So, too, in discussing the principle in United States v. Reese, et al., 92 U.S. 214, 23 L.Ed. 563, the court held the statute too vague and indefinite for enforcement, and in discussing the question said:
In citing with approval the Jackson case, supra, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas said: Griffin v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 498, 218 S.W. 494, 495.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Smith
...those requirements. When a statute is too vague to be effective, it is void. Snow v. Riggs, 172 Ark. 835, 290 S.W. 591; State v. Bryant, 219 Ark. 313, 241 S.W.2d 473. The probate judge was certainly correct in his analysis of due process requirements in the criminal law field. A statute def......
-
Lovell v. State
...for those whose activities are proscribed and (2) a standard for police enforcement and for ascertainment of guilt. State v. Bryant, 219 Ark. 313, 241 S.W.2d 473 (1951); Note, The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court, 109 U.Pa.L.Rev. 67, 68-69 (1960); Note, Due Process Requireme......
-
McGuire v. State
...but a procedural statute. See Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972); State v. Bryant, 219 Ark. 313, 241 S.W.2d 473 (1951). Flexibility and reasonable breadth in a statute are permissible, rather than meticulous specificity or great exactitud......
-
Johnston v. City of Fort Smith, CA
...for those whose activities are proscribed and (2) a standard for police enforcement and for ascertainment of guilt. State v. Bryant, 219 Ark. 313, 241 S.W.2d 473 (1951); Note, The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court, 109 U.Pa.L.Rev. 67, 68-69 (1960), Note, Due Process Requireme......