Opinion ID: 2428009
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Paraphernalia

Text: Crail moved to dismiss the paraphernalia possession charge, asserting an inconsistency between the law which characterizes possession of a small quantity of marijuana (first offense) as a misdemeanor, Ark.Code Ann. § 5-64-401(c) (Supp.1991), and possession of an otherwise legal pipe as a felony, Ark.Code Ann. § 5-64-403(c)(1) (1987). He contended generally that the inconsistency constituted a violation of his rights to equal protection of the laws and due process of law, and more specifically that it violated the prohibition against vagueness. He pursues his void for vagueness argument here, citing Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 68 S.Ct. 665, 92 L.Ed. 840 (1948); Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926); and Garner v. White, 726 F.2d 1274 (8th Cir.1984). He contends the General Assembly's inconsistency in assessing the seriousness of these offenses has sent a mixed message to the public. We have previously held the paraphernalia statute is not vague. In Moore v. State, 297 Ark. 296, 761 S.W.2d 894 (1988), the appellants argued that the term paraphernalia as used in Ark.Code Ann. § 5-64-101(v)(12) (Supp.1991) was vague. We explained that the detailed definitions found in the Statute give adequate notice of conduct constituting the offense. The cases cited approach the vagueness problem by looking to the language of a challenged statute and considering whether a challenged part is subject to a variety of interpretations thus failing to give fair notice of prohibited conduct. Crail does not challenge any part of our Statute. He argues that, while he knew that possession of a small quantity of marijuana was prohibited, he also knew that the consequences for violation of that prohibition were not serious. He did not know, however, that possession of a pipe used to smoke marijuana had more serious consequences. This is the inconsistency which he asserts renders the statutory scheme vague. Crail cites nothing in support of his conclusion that the Statutes interrelate so as to create confusion. There is no assertion that, standing alone, either Statute is vague. Each adequately describes that which is prohibited. Nor does Crail assert that Ark.Code Ann. § 5-64-403 (1987), which provides the penalties associated with violation of the prohibitions, fails to advise one of the consequences. There is no vagueness here. Crail's failure to understand the consequences of possessing the pipe is attributable to his ignorance of the law. That is no excuse, Michalek v. Lockhart, 292 Ark. 301, 730 S.W.2d 210 (1987); Woods v. Lockhart, 292 Ark. 37, 727 S.W.2d 849 (1987), and the challenge to the statutory scheme is without merit.