State v. White
Decision Date | 20 August 1971 |
Citation | 280 A.2d 810 |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Maine v. Kendall T. WHITE, Jr. |
Joseph C. Brennan, County Atty., Donald Lowry, Asst. County Atty., Portland, for the State.
Vernon I. Arey (Law Student), Joseph Jabar (Law Student), Cushman D. Anthony, Supervising Atty., Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic, Portland, for defendant.
Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and WEBBER, WEATHERBEE, POMEROY, WERNICK, and ARCHIBALD, JJ.
On report. The defendant having been convicted in the District Court of the offense of 'disorderly conduct' (17 M.R.S.A Sec. 3953) appealed to the Superior Court. There he filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging in effect (a) that the statute proscribing 'disorderly conduct' is constitutionally invalid as impermissibly vague and overbroad, and (b) that the complaint is legally insufficient to charge any criminal offense. By agreement of the parties and upon an appropriate order of the Superior Court pursuant to M.R.Crim.P., Rule 37A(a) these issues were reported for determination by the Law Court.
Since in our view the defendant must prevail upon the second issue, we do not reach the constitutionality of 17 M.R.S.A., Sec. 3953. The long established practice of this Court was recognized and the reasons for such practice were well and clearly stated by the late Chief Justice Merrill in Morris v. Goss (1951) 147 Me. 89, 93, 83 A.2d 556, 559 in these terms:
(Emphasis supplied.)
In Johnson v. Maine Wetlands Control Board (1969) (Me.) 250 A.2d 825, 827 we said, See also State v. Hopkins, 154 Me. 317, 318, 147 A.2d 450 (1958).
Omitting the formal portions, the complaint here charged that the defendant 'did by offensive and disorderly conduct and offensive and disorderly language annoy and interfere with one David Martino although such conduct and language did not then and there amount to an assault and battery.' In effect the complaint employed the language of the statute which proscribes the 'breach of the peace' committed when any person 'shall by any offensive or disorderly conduct, act or language annoy or interfere with any person in any place * * * although such conduct, act or language may not amount to an assault or battery.' In our view this case is governed by the rule announced in State v. Houde (1955) 150 Me. 469, 114 A.2d 366. In that case the statute proscribed operation of a motor vehicle 'recklessly,' denominating such conduct as 'reckless driving.' The offense was charged by the complaint 'in the statutory language or its equivalent.' We viewed the generic conduct proscribed as an ultimate fact requiring the allegation and proof of essential underlying facts tending to establish such ultimate fact. We said, 'From the statement 'in a reckless manner' taken...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. John W.
...States, 394 U.S. 705, 89 S.Ct. 1399, 22 L.Ed.2d 664 (1969), both cited in Hotham, 307 A.2d at 186-187. As we said in State v. White, Me., 280 A.2d 810, 812 (1971): "The importance of this requirement becomes apparent when we consider that many forms of conduct and language, although distast......
-
S**** S**** v. State
...sustaining a demurrer without resort to any constitutional question, the latter issue is not reached.' (Emphasis mine.) In State v. White, 1971, Me., 280 A.2d 810, the parties had raised on report two issues, 1) that the statute proscribing 'disorderly conduct' was constitutionally invalid ......
-
State v. Davenport
...of the night at which the act was done is not required for a valid indictment. We view this case as distinguishable from State v. White, 1971, Me., 280 A.2d 810, and State v. Houde, 1955, 150 Me. 469, 114 A.2d 366, which respectively involved a complaint charging disorderly conduct and reck......
-
State v. Pierce
...to abandon the requirement that the essential constituting facts of a crime be stated in the complaint or indictment. See State v. White, Me., 280 A.2d 810 (1971); Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 766, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 1048, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962). Undoubtedly, the language of a statute ......