Opinion ID: 1984209
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: constitutionality of chapter 12.1-18, n.d.c.c.

Text: The constitutional claim of the defendant is that Chapter 12.1-18 is unconstitutional because of the vagueness of its definitions, particularly its use of the words substantial and substantially in Section 12.1-18-04, containing definitions of restrain and abduct. In those definitions the word substantially or substantial appears three times, modifying the verb interfere and the nouns distance and period. We do not believe that the words substantial and substantially are so indefinite as to make statutes using them in these contexts unconstitutional because of vagueness. Standing alone, the word substantial is a relative and not an exact term, as the defendant says, citing 83 C.J.S. Substantial at 762. However, it is a word which acquires precision according to the term it modifies as an adjective. Lipp v. Corson County, 76 S.D. 343, 78 N.W.2d 172 (1956). As used in Section 12.1-18-04, it means significant, important, or real, as distinguished from insignificant, trivial, nominal, or imaginary. Thus, if a complainant was moved a significant or important  as distinguished from trivial  distance and her liberty was interfered with in a real, important, or significant way, the statute would be satisfied. We believe that the word substantially is one in common use and readily understood by jurors; it is a term which is used in jury instructions which we have approved. See Dugas v. Felton, 249 N.W.2d 215 (N.D.1976), in which we held proper an instruction which stated: . . . pecuniary loss need not be established by proof in dollars and cents. A substantial loss will be presumed. 249 N.W.2d at 219. In the same case we said that the proper meaning of the word substantial, when applied to damages for wrongful death of a child, was best shown when contrasted with nominal. Chapter 12.1-18 is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness. Especially in the absence of a request for an instruction defining substantial or substantially, there was no error in using them in the instructions without definition except by context. See 4-b, below.