Court Opinion

ID: 9552964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:19:39.034235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:27.179370
License: Public Domain

ERICKSON, Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from part I of the majority opinion. In my view, the second-degree criminal trespass statute, section 18-4-503, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8),1 is unconstitutionally vague.
The concept of due process embodied within the federal2 and state 3 constitutions is based upon notions of fundamental fairness. See Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 258 F.Supp. 515 (D.Colo.1966). The principle of fundamental fairness is violated if a criminal statute does not fairly describe the conduct it prohibits. To withstand a constitutional attack, persons of common intelligence must be able to readily understand the meaning and application of the statute. People v. Holloway, 193 Colo. 450, 568 P.2d 29 (1977); People ex rel. VanMeveren v. County Court, 191 Colo. 201, 551 P.2d 716 (1976); People v. Gonzales, 188 Colo. 272, 534 P.2d 626 (1975).
In my view, by reference to the accompanying explanatory statute (section 18 — 4— 201(3), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8)), a person of common intelligence must speculate as to the meaning of the second-degree criminal trespass statute. Section 18 — 4— 201(3) provides:
*547“A person ‘unlawfully enters or remains’ in or upon premises when he is not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to do so.... ”
The phrase “otherwise privileged” is neither commonly used nor easily understood by a layperson. It is simply too vague and too uncertain to adequately describe the conduct prohibited by the second-degree criminal trespass statute. As presently defined, an innocent person may be subjected to criminal penalties by an inability to fully understand the proscriptions of the crime or by a reasonable failure to understand that certain acts may be prohibited by the statute. The wording of the statute is so broad that it includes even inadvertent trespasses, regardless of intent or purpose. Further, the violation is solely determined by one person exercising judgment as to whether an intrusion did occur.
Accordingly, I would reverse the order of the superior court.

. Section 18 — 4-503 provides:
“A person commits the crime of second degree criminal trespass if he unlawfully enters or remains in or upon premises which are enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders or are fenced. Second degree criminal trespass is a class 3 misdemeanor.”

. U.S.Const., amend. XIV.

. CoIo.Const., art. II, sec. 25.