Lovelace v. Clark
| Decision Date | 27 September 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 1100,1100 |
| Citation | 315 P.2d 876,83 Ariz. 27 |
| Parties | Curtis Weldon LOVELACE, Petitioner, v. James W. CLARK, Sheriff of Pima County, Respondent. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Lawrence E. Ackels, Dallas, Tex., and Lawrence Ollason, Tucson, for petitioner.
Robert Morrison, Atty. Gen., J. H. Green, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Raul H. Castro, County Atty. of Pima County, H. E. Rogge, Jr., Chief Deputy County Atty., Pima County, Tuscon, for respondent.
The sole question presented by this appeal is: 'Did the trial court err in dismissing the writ of habeas corpus because the statute in question, A.R.S. Section 13-652, defining lewd and lascivious acts and fixing a penalty therefor, is violative of the due process clause of the State Constitution (article 2, section 4 A.R.S.), and of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?', the precise contention being that the statute is in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning. Petitioner cites no authority in support of his contention. A similar challenge was directed to this statute (then Section 43-407, A.C.A.1939) in the case of State of Arizona v. Farmer, 61 Ariz. 266, 148 P.2d 1002 and its constitutionality was there upheld. Other jurisdictions have held likewise. Cf. Blake v. State, 210 Md. 459, 124 A.2d 273; Koa Gora v. Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 152 F.2d 933, certiorari denied 328 U.S. 862, 66 S.Ct. 1362, 90 L.Ed. 1632; State v. Prejean, 216 La. 1072, 45 So.2d 627. See also Faber v. State, 62 Ariz. 16, 152 P.2d 671; Tonker v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 369, 178 F.2d 712; Weldon v. United States, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 113, 183 F.2d 832. We see no occasion to again review the matter.
We hold there is no merit to the appeal because the statute in question, in our opinion, does define the offense in terms so that men of common intelligence know its meaning and hence it is not violative of the due process clause of either the state or federal constitutions.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwartzmiller v. Gardner
...indefinite as to deny due process. The Court is also aware of opinions upholding statutes similar to I.C. § 18-6607: Lovelace v. Clark, 83 Ariz. 27, 315 P.2d 876 (1957) (commit, in unnatural manner, any lewd or lascivious act); State v. Bateman, 113 Ariz. 107, 547 P.2d 6 (1976) (crime again......
-
State v. Bateman
...59 S.Ct. 618, 83 L.Ed. 888 (1939). An offense must be defined in terms that men of average intelligence understand. Lovelace v. Clark, 83 Ariz. 27, 315 P.2d 876 (1957). The defendants attack ARS § 13--651 and § 13--652 as contrary to this principle. The Due Process Clause requires only that......
-
Palm Gardens, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Commission
...and punish, so that a person of ordinary understanding may know what conduct on his part is condemned * * *.' Accord, Lovelace v. Clark, 83 Ariz. 27, 315 P.2d 876 (1957); Chesebrough v. State, 255 So.2d 675 (Fla.1971); State v. Shannon, 95 Idaho 299, 507 P.2d 808 The United States Supreme C......
-
State v. Harmon, 14886
...State v. Herr, 97 Idaho 783, 554 P.2d 961 (1976). Other jurisdictions have upheld "statutes similar to I.C. § 18-6607. Lovelace v. Clark, 83 Ariz. 27, 315 P.2d 876 (1957) (commit, in unnatural manner, any lewd or lascivious act); State v. Bateman, 113 Ariz. 107, 547 P.2d 6 (1976) (crime aga......