Opinion ID: 1230599
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is the Act unconstitutionally vague and indefinite?

Text: Appellant claims that the Act is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite. We hold the Act is not the type of statute that is amenable to a claim of vagueness. In State v. Najera, 89 N.M. 522, at 522, 554 P.2d 983, at 983 (Ct.App. 1976) the Court of Appeals stated: The vagueness doctrine is based on notice and applies when a potential actor is exposed to criminal sanctions without a fair warning as to the nature of the proscribed activity. (citations omitted). No one can be found guilty of violating the Act. The Act is not a penal act. The only sanction that can come from the Act is a contempt citation for failure to abide by a court order. The Act therefore is not unconstitutionally vague or indefinite.