Arlan's Dept. Store of Louisville v. Com.
Decision Date | 03 May 1963 |
Citation | 369 S.W.2d 9 |
Parties | ARLAN'S DEPARTMENT STORE OF LOUISVILLE, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
James E. Thornberry, Louisville, for appellant.
Charles E. Keller, Oldham Clarke, Louisville, amici curiae.
John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., Robert L. Montague, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Laurence E. Higgins, Commonwealth's Atty., Carl C. Ousley, Jr., Asst. Commonwealth's Atty., for appellee.
On a previous appeal of this case we reversed a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court holding the Sunday closing law, KRS 436.160, unconstitutional. The particular grounds on which the validity of the law had been successfully challenged in the circuit court are discussed in Commonwealth v. Arlan's Department Store of Louisville, Ky., 1962, 357 S.W.2d 708. The case was then tried on stipulated facts without a jury and resulted in a conviction from which the defendant now appeals, contesting the statute on a new and different ground. Because of the importance of the question and the desirability of its early resolution we shall not consider the technical objection that in this proceeding it is concluded by the 'law of the case' principle.
The heart of the statute is contained in this sentence:
'(1) Any person who works on Sunday at his own or at any other occupation or employs any other person, in labor or other business, whether for profit or amusement, unless his work or the employment of others is in the course of ordinary household duties, work of necessity or charity or work required in the maintenance or operation of a public service or public utility plant or system, shall be fined not less than two dollars nor more than fifty dollars.' (Emphasis added.)
The stipulated facts are:
The main issue now before us is whether by virtue of its 'unless' clause, especially the exception of 'work of necessity,' the statute is so vague as to be unenforceable.
As a general principle of law the 'void for vagueness' rule is well-established. It was explicitly stated in United States v. Capital Traction Company, 1910, 34 App.D.C. 592, 19 Ann.Cas. 68, 70, as follows:
One of the supporting authorities mentioned in the Capital Traction Company opinion was the Kentucky case of Louisville & N. Railroad Company v. Commonwealth, 1896, 99 Ky. 132, 35 S.W. 129, 33 L.R.A. 209, 59 Am.St.Rep. 457, in which this court, citing Mr. Justice Brewer's observation that there was very little difference between a provision of the Chinese Penal Code prescribing a penalty for 'improper conduct' and a statute making it a criminal offense to charge more than a reasonable rate, 1 held void for uncertainty a statute declaring it an offense punishable by fine for a railroad corporation to charge 'more than a just and reasonable rate,' etc. In a later case, Sullivan v. Brawner, 1931, 237 Ky. 730, 36 S.W.2d 364, 368, it was suggested that a criminal enactment so indefinitely phrased as to require conjecture in determining its meaning not only violates fundamental rights of individuals charged with disobeying it, but also delegates to the courts what the writer of that opinion considered to be a legislative function. On the other hand, it was pointed out in Bailey v. Commonwealth, 1930, 235 Ky. 173, 30 S.W.2d 879, 2 'that a criminal law is not unconstitutional merely because it throws upon people the risk of rightly estimating a matter of degree which deals with fixed and actual, as distinguished from imaginary and unascertained, conditions.' And in the recent case of McDonald v. Commonwealth, Ky.1960, 331 S.W.2d 716, implicitly acknowledging the influence of its public purpose, we held that the statute making it an offense to contribute to the delinquency of a minor is not void for uncertainty. KRS 199.320(1). 3
The law of the colonies to the time of the Revolution was 29 Charles II, c. 7 (1677), which provided in part that no person might do any worldly labor, business or work on Sunday except for 'work of necessity and charity only.' 4 The same exception has descended to and appears today in the Sunday closing laws of a number of the states. 5 'The effect of the phrase has been to give the courts a wide range of discretion in determining exceptions. But reasonable men can and do differ as to what is 'necessity." 6 In the long history of the statute this has been the issue the courts most frequently, and almost exclusively, have been called upon to decide. Probably because of the persuasive weight of public opinion, it has not often been suggested, until recently, that the Sunday closing laws are too vague for enforcement. That particular question has never been directly decided by this court, though on several occasions the meaning of 'work of necessity' has been discussed incident to a determination of whether the specific activity involved in the case fell within that exception. 7
In the few jurisdictions where the same or comparable phraseology has been tested against the 'void for vagueness' rule the courts have divided. For example, in Commonwealth v. American Baseball Club of Philadelphia, 1927, 290 Pa. 136, 138 A. 497, 53 A.L.R. 1027 (), State of Iowa v. Linsig, 1916, 178 Iowa 484, 159 N.W. 995 (), and State of New Jersey v. Monteleone, 1961, 36 N.J. 93, 175 A.2d 207 (), the law was held not to be fatally uncertain. In State v. Hill, 1962, 189 Kan. 403, 369 P.2d 365, and Harvey v. Priest, Mo.1963, 366 S.W.2d 324, statutes prohibiting Sunday sales of merchandise except for 'drugs and medicines, provisions, or other articles of immediate necessity' were held too indefinite for enforcement.
Proceeding from abstract principles a logical case can be made for either side of the proposition in issue. There are ample precedents which, at least by analogy, support the appellant's position. Logic, however, is but one of the factors that enter into the complex process of jurisprudence. A legal theory is best defined by observation of how it is applied to actual fact situations. The way in which a principle has been applied in one type of case sometimes defies analogy with the way in which it has been applied (or not applied) in another. We are reminded again of Holmes' famous introductory passage: 8
The process by which the Sunday closing statute has weathered the tests of time, enacted originally for religious purposes that would now be considered fatal to its constitutionality, but later sustained 'as a legitimate exercise of the police powers of the state * * * based upon long experience and custom, proving that periods of rest from ordinary pursuits are requisite to the well-being, physically and mentally, as well as morally, of a people,' 9 provides graphic demonstration of Holmes' thesis.
Since we are called upon to assess the validity and effect of this law with due regard for 'the manners, habits, wants and customs of the people it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Second St. Properties, Inc. v. Fiscal Court of Jefferson County
...penal in nature, it may be the Constitution would required identical application throughout the state. See Arlan's Dept Store of Louisville v. Commonwealth, Ky., 369 S.W.2d 9 (1963).2 Certain special limitations are placed upon the expenditures of funds by a commission created in a county c......
-
O'Leary v. Com.
...unascertained, conditions.' Bailey v. Commonwealth, 235 Ky. 173, 30 S.W.2d 879, 880 (1930). 1 See also Arlan's Department Store of Louisville v. Commonwealth, 369 S.W.2d 9, 11 (Ky.1963), 2 and cases therein cited. There are many crimes that are and must be broadly defined, but which are not......
-
Hill v. Gibson Discount Center
...Maryland, 220 Md. 117, 151 A.2d 156 (1959); State v. Wiener, 245 La. 889, 161 So.2d 755 (1964); Arlan's Department Store of Louisville v. Commonwealth, 369 S.W.2d 9 (Kentucky Civ.App.--1963); State ex rel. Heck's Inc. v. Gates, 149 W.Va. 421, 141 S.E.2d 369 (W.Va.Sup., 1965); State v. Solom......
-
Payne v. Com., 80-SC-627-MR
...(1928), this court said, "The law usually is what the average reasonable man thinks it ought to be." In Arlan's Dept. Store of Louisville v. Commonwealth, Ky., 369 S.W.2d 9 (1963), we recognized "... that if a law is so vague that the average reasonable man cannot intelligently choose in ad......