State v. Donahue
Decision Date | 05 March 1979 |
Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
Citation | 591 P.2d 394,39 Or.App. 79 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. William David DONAHUE, Respondent. 78-17; CA 11791. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Thomas H. Denney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, filed the brief for appellant. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., and Walter L. Barrie, Sol. Gen., Salem.
No appearance for respondent.
Before SCHWAB, C. J., and TANZER, RICHARDSON and ROBERTS, JJ.
The state appeals from an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to a criminal complaint charging him with the crime of disorderly conduct, ORS 166.025(1)(a) and (c). 1 The only issue is whether the statutory definition of the crime is unconstitutionally vague. We find no impermissible vagueness and reverse.
ORS 166.025 provides in pertinent part:
The district court ruled that the italicized phrase in the general section defining the requisite mental element of the crime common to all subsections is unconstitutionally vague and declared the entire statute void. It acknowledged that this court had rejected that contention in State v. Marker, 21 Or.App. 671, 674-75, 536 P.2d 1273 (1975), but concluded that our decision in State v. Sanderson, 33 Or.App. 173, 575 P.2d 1025 (1978), impliedly overruled Marker. Although Sanderson considered a different statute, ORS 166.065(1)(d) 2 (harassment), the definitions of disorderly conduct and harassment contain similar language and are subject to analysis by analogy. See, State v. Marker, 21 Or.App. at 674-75, 536 P.2d 1273; State v. Sallinger, 11 Or.App. 592, 595-96, 504 P.2d 1383 (1972).
We recently restated the basic principles of the vagueness doctrine in State v. Larsen, 37 Or.App. 425, 429, 588 P.2d 41, 43 (1978), and need not repeat them here. In Larsen, we also clarified the basis of the Sanderson decision:
* * * "
In Sanderson, the definition of the prohibited act was intentionally general in order to serve as a catchall and, looking to the statute as a whole, the definition of the requisite mental state added no specificity. In Larsen we looked to ORS 166.065(1)(c) as a whole and held that the intent clause and the prohibited act clause were sufficiently specific to survive a challenge for unconstitutional vagueness.
Looking to ORS 166.025(1)(a) and (c) as a whole, the use of general language to describe the requisite mental intent when performing prohibited acts which are defined with greater specificity does not render the statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Begins, 85-326
...to create or recklessly creates a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or harm, is not void for vagueness); State v. Donahue, 39 Or.App. 79, 82-83, 591 P.2d 394, 395 (1979) (same statute held not unconstitutionally vague insofar as it related to disorderly conduct such as fighting or abu......
-
State v. Cantwell
...v. Clark, 39 Or.App. 63, 591 P.2d 752, rev. den. 286 Or. 303 (1979) (ORS 166.025(1)(h) not unconstitutionally vague); State v. Donahue, 39 Or.App. 79, 591 P.2d 394 (1979) (ORS 166.025(1)(a) and (1)(c) not unconstitutionally vague, but ORS 166.025(1)(c) held unconstitutionally overbroad in S......
-
State v. Clark, 77-2811-C
...condition by any act which he is not licensed or privileged to do." We have hitherto upheld subsections (a) and (c), See State v. Donahue, Or.App., 591 P.2d 394 (decided today), but not subsection (h). Our first duty is to construe the statute in a constitutional manner if possible, State v......
-
State v. Keller, DA143278
...and at best equally vague statute (ORS 166.025) may be read in State v. Marker, 21 Or.App. 671, 536 P.2d 1273 (1975); State v. Donahue, 39 Or.App. 79, 591 P.2d 394 (1979); and State v. Clark, 39 Or.App. 63, 591 P.2d 752 (1979). Those cases also suggest that we are generally willing to uphol......