Opinion ID: 1466624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: CONSTITUTIONALITY OF KRS 507.020(1)(b).

Text: Appellant asserts that the wanton murder statute, KRS 507.020(1)(b), is unconstitutionally vague. He incorrectly argues that wantonness is the equivalent of intent (no one claims Appellant intended to kill Mrs. Rains) whereas indifference to human life indicates a lack of intent, and that this vague language neither gives adequate notice of what conduct is prohibited nor provides clear standards to law enforcement officers. We rejected a similar challenge to this statute in Brown v. Commonwealth, supra . The appellant in Brown also argued that the legislature failed to establish standards for applying the statute and that the jury was left to decide each case on an individual basis. We held that the phrase extreme indifference to human life contained words of common understanding and, thus, the statute was not void for vagueness. Id. at 925. Our views in that regard have not changed.