McCorkle v. State
| Decision Date | 29 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 546 |
| Citation | 446 So.2d 684 |
| Parties | Charles McCORKLE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Gregory S. Combs, Spanish Fort, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Peggy Schmitz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
While incarcerated in the Baldwin County Jail, Charles McCorkle, the appellant, cut his wrist with a razor blade in what he contends was an attempt to commit suicide. He was convicted of violating Section 13A-14-1, Code of Alabama (1975), entitled "Maiming one's self to escape duty or obtain alms." He was sentenced as an habitual offender to fifteen years' imprisonment. Section 13A-14-1 provides:
"Every person who, with design to disable himself from performing a legal duty, existing or anticipated, shall inflict upon himself an injury whereby he is so disabled and every person who shall so injure himself with intent to avail himself of such injury to excite sympathy or to obtain alms or some charitable relief shall be guilty of a felony."
McCorkle contends that this statute is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite.
"As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) (citations omitted). A statute challenged for vagueness must therefore be scrutinized to determine whether it provides both fair notice to the public that certain conduct is proscribed and minimal guidelines to aid officials in the enforcement of that proscription. See Kolender, supra; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). If the statute "either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application", it is void for vagueness. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926).
Section 13A-14-1 prohibits the self-infliction of injuries with either the design to avoid the performance of a legal duty or the intent to excite sympathy or obtain alms or charitable relief. The injury contemplated by the statute appears to be an injury which disables one from performing a legal duty. No guidance, however, is offered as to what is encompassed by the term "legal duty".
"Where a statute does not define a term, a court must ... give words their common and ordinary meaning, absent some established technical definition, unless the legislature intended otherwise." High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 673 F.2d 1225, 1229 (11th Cir.1982). The term "legal duty" has several established meanings. It may refer strictly to those duties imposed by statute such as filing income tax returns, Section 40-18-27, Code of Alabama (1975), or giving information and rendering aid in the event of an automobile accident, Section 32-10-2, Code, supra. It may also refer to the duties voluntarily assumed by entering into a contract. In negligence law, "legal duty" generally refers to a duty to exercise due care to prevent injury to another. See 65 C.J.S. Negligence Section 4(1) (1966). In that context, the duty may vary from case to case depending on the circumstances involved, C.J.S., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lansdell v. State
...2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)."' "Timmons v. City of Montgomery, 641 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), quoting McCorkle v. State, 446 So.2d 684, 685 (Ala.Crim.App.1983).... ".... The judicial power to declare a statute void for vagueness `should be exercised only when a statute is so inco......
-
Hicks v. State (Ex parte Hicks)
...2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972).” '“Timmons v. City of Montgomery, 641 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), quoting McCorkle v. State, 446 So.2d 684, 685 (Ala.Crim.App.1983). However,“ ‘ “ ‘[t]his prohibition against excessive vagueness does not invalidate every statute which a reviewing court......
-
State v. K.E.L.
...33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)." ’" Timmons v. City of Montgomery, 641 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993), quoting McCorkle v. State, 446 So. 2d 684, 685 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983). However," ‘ " ‘[t]his prohibition against excessive vagueness does not invalidate every statute which a reviewing co......
-
Powell v. State
...2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972).” ' “ Timmons v. City of Montgomery, 641 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), quoting McCorkle v. State, 446 So.2d 684, 685 (Ala.Crim.App.1983). However, “ ‘ “ ‘[t]his prohibition against excessive vagueness does not invalidate every statute which a reviewing co......