Title: State v. Allen

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

107 Ariz. 538 (1971) 490 P.2d 10 STATE of Arizona, Plaintiff, v. Stanley ALLEN, Defendant. No. 2345. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. November 2, 1971. Moise Berger, Maricopa County Atty., by Robert F. Retzer, Deputy County Atty., Phoenix, for plaintiff. Evans & Kunz, Ltd., by Donald R. Kunz and William G. Stinson, Phoenix, for defendant. CAMERON, Justice. This is a Certification of Question under Rule 346, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. Two questions are presented: The facts stipulated by the parties are in part as follows: It is stipulated that defendant was not a registered dealer, nor were the securities registered, nor were the sales exempt unless exempted by § 44-1844 subsec. 3 A.R.S. It is further stipulated that the sales were made in good faith and not for the purpose of avoiding the provisions of Title 44, Chapter 12 A.R.S. The parties do not agree, however, whether the foregoing sales were an "isolated transaction" or were "made in the course of repeated or successive transactions of similar character." IS § 44-1844, subsec. 3 A.R.S. VOID FOR VAGUENESS? § 44-1844 reads in pertinent part: This court has stated: This does not mean that drafters of legislation are so restricted that they can never enact a definite and certain penal statute: In determining whether a statute is void for vagueness the statute must be read in its entirety. In the instant case, the parties emphasize the "repeated or successive transactions" clause in paragraph 3 of § 44-1844 A.R.S. to the exclusion of the second additional requirement that the sales "are not made directly or indirectly for the benefit of the issuer or an underwriter of the securities." We believe that the intent of the legislature was that owners who sold their stock in successive and repeated transactions and were also selling for the benefit (directly or indirectly) of the issuer or underwriter were not to be entitled to the exemption granted by § 44-1844 A.R.S. In the instant case, while the defendant certainly made repeated and successive sales, it was stipulated "that such sales were not made directly or indirectly for the benefit of the issuer or underwriter of the securities." We believe this statute puts a person in the position of being notified that if he wishes to sell his own stock in good faith, he is entitled to the exemption. If the ownership is a subterfuge for the unlicensed sale of stock of an issurer or an underwriter he can lose his owner's exemption. We do not find this vague or indefinite as applied to the facts in this case. The answer to the first question is no the statute is not void for vagueness. MUST THE OWNER BE REGISTERED? § 44-1801 A.R.S. states in part as follows: Whether a person is a dealer is a fact question for the trier of fact. Whether the sale is "in good faith and not for the purpose of avoiding the provisions of this chapter" is also a fact question, but we have no difficulty in stating that an owner of shares of stock who comes within the exemption provided in paragraph 3 of § 44-1844 A.R.S. *541 is not a dealer within the meaning of § 44-1801 A.R.S. Although the Certified Question is whether a bona fide owner selling under § 44-1844, subsec. 3 A.R.S. is excused from registration by § 44-1801, subsec. 2 A.R.S., we believe the question could just as well have been whether § 44-1844, subsec. 3 A.R.S. will excuse a person from being considered a dealer by the definition of § 44-1801, subsec. 2 A.R.S. In any event, we hold that the answer to the second question is that one covered by the exemption contained in § 44-1844, subsec. 3 A.R.S. need not register as a dealer as defined by § 44-1801, subsec. 2 A.R.S. STRUCKMEYER, C.J., HAYS, V.C.J., and UDALL and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.