Title: State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Superior Court
Citation: 128 Ariz. 184, 624 P.2d 862
Docket Number: 15206
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: February 17, 1981

128 Ariz. 184 (1981) 624 P.2d 862 STATE of Arizona, ex rel. Lowell D. HAMILTON, Mesa City Prosecutor, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY; and the Honorable Gerald J. Strick, Judge of the Superior Court of Maricopa County; and Michael C. Boyle, Defendant and Real Party in Interest, Respondents. No. 15206. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. February 17, 1981. *185 Lowell D. Hamilton, Mesa City Pros., Mesa, for petitioner. Alston, Edwards &amp; Novak by Margaret R. Tinsley, Phoenix, for real party in interest. CAMERON, Justice. We accepted this petition for special action pursuant to Article 6, § 5 of the Arizona Constitution and Rule 1, Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, 17A A.R.S., because this is a matter of state-wide importance and there is no equal, plain, speedy and adequate remedy by appeal. We must answer only one question: Is the public sexual indecency act, A.R.S. § 13-1403(A), void for vagueness and therefore unconstitutional? The facts necessary for a determination of this matter are as follows. The real party in interest and respondent, Michael C. Boyle, was identified by three elementary school girls as the person who exposed himself and masturbated before the girls on two separate occasions in September and October of 1979. Complaints were filed in the Mesa City Court alleging the two violations of A.R.S. § 13-1403(A), public sexual indecency. Michael C. Boyle entered a plea of not guilty, and the matter was tried to a jury in the Mesa City Court with a guilty verdict rendered by the jury on both counts. Michael C. Boyle then appealed to the Superior Court of Maricopa County, and the Superior Court judge ruled that A.R.S. § 13-1403(A) is unconstitutional as being impermissibly vague. From the ruling of the trial court, petitioners, City of Mesa and the Mesa City Prosecutor, brought a special action in this court. I The statute reads as follows: "Sexual contact" is defined by A.R.S. § 13-1401(2) as: "Sexual contact" is distinguished in the statute from other sexual activities such as "oral sexual contact," A.R.S. § 13-1401(1), and "sexual intercourse," A.R.S. § 13-1401(3). II There is no doubt that the contact described in the instant case is conduct which could be constitutionally proscribed. Respondent, Michael C. Boyle, however, contends the statute in question is impermissibly vague. Respondent cites the United States Supreme Court case of Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S. Ct. 2294, 33 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1972), in support of his position that a statute that is vague is void as a matter of due process. In that case, the United States Supreme Court stated: And this court in like language has stated: The law is clear that a statute that is impermissibly vague is void and may not be used to impose criminal sanctions against a person alleged to have violated the statute. Grayned, supra; Locks, supra. There is still a presumption, however, in favor of the constitutionality of a statute, and "The burden rests upon one assailing the validity of a statute to establish that it infringes a constitutional guarantee or violates some constitutional principle." State v. Krug, 96 Ariz. 225, 228, 393 P.2d 916, 918 (1964). It is also recognized that: III Respondent raises three specific objections to the statute. First he contends We believe that it is clear that the statute can be violated by one person acting alone, as was the case here, with one or more people watching. The statute is not concerned with sexual intercourse, as defined in A.R.S. § 13-1401(3) which would require at least two persons, but actions by one (or more) in public that may be seen or observed by others. The statute gives clear notice that if one person engages in the activities described by the statute in the presence or view of others, that person will be in violation of the statute. The statute is definite and certain as to who may violate the statute. The defendant secondly contends that: In this the defendant is contending that the statute is overbroad in that it applies to conduct which the state may not proscribe. State ex rel. Purcell v. Superior Court, 111 Ariz. 582, 535 P.2d 1299 (1975). *187 We do not agree that the statute extends to normal bodily functions in a public restroom. The acts have to be reckless and offensive or alarming to reasonable persons and of a sexual nature. Normal bodily functions in a public restroom would not be offensive or alarming to reasonable persons and are not of a sexual nature as required by the statute. The statute excludes normal bodily functions and is neither vague nor overbroad. Finally respondent states: Again we do not agree. The medical treatment defense provided by statute reads as follows: Section 13-1402 concerns indecent exposure, -1404 sexual abuse, -1405 sexual contact with a minor, and -1406 sexual assault. The fact that the legislature chose to omit § 13-1403, the statute in this case, from § 13-1407 providing for a medical defense, does not mean, as respondent contends, that the statute would make criminal a physical examination by a medical doctor. The statute does not admit to such an interpretation. The statute refers to reckless conduct by which the other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed. If the statute prohibited routine or necessary medical examination and treatment, it would, of course, be overbroad. We do not believe, however, that reasonable people would so interpret the statute to cover proper and necessary medical examination. IV It is easy to allege and often difficult to rebut allegations of vagueness. This is particularly true of allegations which speculate as to fact situations not likely to occur, activities clearly not intended by the legislature to be prohibited by the statute, or prosecutions not apt to be brought. In the instant case, it is clear that defendant, by reading the statute, would know that masturbating before the three elementary school girls was prohibited by the statute. The statute gave him adequate notice as to what was prohibited. As we have stated: The order of the trial court finding that the statute is unconstitutional is set aside, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. STRUCKMEYER, C.J., and HAYS, HOLOHAN and GORDON, JJ., concur.