Opinion ID: 2447561
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unconstitutional Vagueness

Text: [¶ 14] Having interpreted the gross sexual assault statute's plain meaning, we now address Aboda's contention that the statute is unconstitutionally void for vagueness. Pursuant to principles of due process, a criminal statute is unconstitutionally vague when it fails to provide sufficient definiteness that an ordinary person can understand what conduct is forbidden and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Thongsavanh, 2007 ME 20, ¶ 36, 915 A.2d at 429 (citations omitted); see State v. Gray, 440 A.2d 1062, 1064 (Me.1982). The statutory language does not require objective quantification, mathematical certainty, and absolute precision, and we will uphold the statute if any reasonable construction will support it. Witham, 2005 ME 79, ¶ 7, 876 A.2d at 42 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 15] In a facial challenge to a statute on vagueness grounds, we need not examine the facial validity of the statute and test its constitutionality in all conceivable factual contexts. Gray, 440 A.2d at 1064; see Me. Milk Producers, Inc. v. Comm'r of Agric., 483 A.2d 1213, 1220 (Me.1984) (An attack on a statute for facial unconstitutionality due to vagueness will not be supported merely because some hypothetical situations may require future judicial interpretation of the statutory language. (citations omitted)). Rather, we assess the void for vagueness challenge by testing it in the circumstances of the individual case and considering whether the statutory language was sufficiently clear to give the defendant adequate notice that his conduct was proscribed. Thongsavanh, 2007 ME 20, ¶ 36, 915 A.2d at 429; Gray, 440 A.2d at 1064; see State v. Crocker, 435 A.2d 58, 83-85 (Me.1981) (Carter, J., concurring). [¶ 16] As we concluded above, the gross sexual assault statute and the definition of compulsion are unambiguous. In these circumstances, Aboda's facial challenge to the constitutionality of these statutes is unpersuasive. The statutes are sufficiently definite to allow ordinary people to understand that it is against the law to compel another person to have intercourse through the use or threat of physical force, even if the other person does not physically resist. See Witham, 2005 ME 79, ¶ 7, 876 A.2d at 42. [¶ 17] Addressing Aboda's vagueness challenge in the circumstances of his individual actions, there is no question that the statutory language was sufficiently clear to give him adequate notice that his conduct was prohibited. Aboda should have been aware that, by restraining the victim with his friend and forcing intercourse on her, he was violating the law. She said no, she said stop, and she tried to move her legs away. Accordingly, sections 251(1)(E) and 253(1)(A) are not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the circumstances of this case. See Thongsavanh, 2007 ME 20, ¶ 36, 915 A.2d at 429. [¶ 18] Because the gross sexual assault statute and the definition of compulsion are unambiguous, and because the statutes are not unconstitutionally vague, either facially or as applied, we affirm the judgment of conviction. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.