Title: State v. Elwell
Citation: 303 A.2d 134
Docket Number: 180-72
State: Vermont
Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court
Date: April 3, 1973

303 A.2d 134 (1973) STATE of Vermont v. Jack R. ELWELL. No. 180-72. Supreme Court of Vermont. April 3, 1973. Neil S. Moss, State's Atty., for the State. Putter &amp; Carrington, Arlington, for defendant. Before SHANGRAW, C. J., and BARNEY, SMITH, KEYSER and DALEY, JJ. SMITH, Justice. This is an appeal before final judgment by the defendant from the decision of the Vermont District Court, Unit No. 1, Bennington Circuit, denying the defendant's motion to quash the information. The State has agreed to the appeal before final judgment, and the question has been certified here by the trial court by virtue of 12 VSA § 2386. The defendant was charged by information with a violation of 13 VSA § 1026(3), which charge reads as follows: The defendant seeks to have the information quashed on the grounds that 13 VSA § 1026(3) is constitutionally vague and an infringement on liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is the policy of this Court, however, to consider constitutional questions only when it is determined that the case is not to be disposed of on other grounds. Law's Admr. v. Culver, 121 Vt. 285, 290, 155 A.2d 855 (1959), State v. Graves, 119 Vt. 205, 207, 122 A.2d 840 (1956). A motion to quash must be based upon facts appearing on the record. State v. Ward, 60 Vt. 142, 153, 14 A. 187 (1887), and cases cited therein. The grounds advanced by the defendant in his motion to quash are (a) that 13 VSA § 1026(3) is vague in the conduct it seeks to proscribe and (b) that the statute is an overbroad intrusion on the rights of free speech of this respondent and the general public in that it punishes protected free speech. The denial of the motion to quash below was not a final judgment adverse to the defendant, for it did not make a final disposition of the subject matter before the lower court. But under 12 VSA § 2386, we have the discretion to permit an appeal before judgment on the determination of questions of law. State v. Blondin, 128 Vt. 613, 615, 270 A.2d 165 (1970). The question presented to us here under this certification is only as to the constitutionality of 13 VSA § 1026(3) in the abstract. While the statute in question might be found to have a constitutional infirmity under one set of circumstances, possibly a different answer might be given under another. American Bond and Mtg. Co. v. United States 282 U.S. 374, 51 S. Ct. 118, 75 L. Ed. 395 (1931). In the instant case there is nothing before us on the record to shed any light on the factual situation out of which the certified question has arisen. Only when the factual situation of the case is presented before us will we be able to determine whether or not the case could not be disposed of on other grounds than the constitutional question sought to be presented *136 here. Law's Admr. v. Culver, supra, State v. Graves, supra. The decisions on the constitutionality of 13 VSA § 1026(3) must depend upon the factual situation which is developed in the trial of the case below. Without such facts the appeal was improvidently granted by the lower court. Appeal dismissed.