Court Opinion

ID: 9673859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:19:27.910285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:47:03.278285
License: Public Domain

Clinton, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority finds that the statutory language, “operates a vehicle in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property shall be guilty of careless driving,” is so vague and unsusceptible of a determinable meaning that it is unconstitutional. I agree that criminal statutes (as well as others) occasionally may be that vague. In my judgment, however, this is not one of those cases.
This court held a predecessor statute, section 39-*4387,108.01, R. R. S. 1943, unconstitutional for vagueness. The language of the statute under consideration there was: “ ‘Any person or persons who shall operate a vehicle upon any highway in such a manner as to (1) endanger the safety of others or (2) cause immoderate wear or damage to any highway, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor ....’” State v. Adams, 180 Neb. 542, 143 N. W. 2d 920.
It is apparent the opinion in Adams was founded upon the premise that the language describing the act prohibited did not import an element of “careless or negligent operation,” and that some such language was necessary to make it sufficiently precise. The opinion referred to a New Jersey case with the apparent purpose of indicating the kind of language which would be acceptably definite and said: “The New Jersey statute included an element of careless or negligent operation which is absent from section 39-7,108.01, R. R. S. 1943.”
The first argument of the majority here seems to be that the word “careless,” in section 39-669, R. R. S. 1943, only names the crime but does not describe the act which is prohibited. It seems clear enough to me that the words of section 39-669, R. R. S. 1943, import the concept of driving in a careless or negligent manner so as to endanger. Apparently if the statute read: “Any person who operates a vehicle in a careless [or negligent] manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property shall be guilty of a misdemeanor [infraction],” the majority would be satisfied. We have a duty to construe statutes so they satisfy constitutional requirements if possible. Here, where the statute in its body calls the crime “careless driving,” it quite obviously means the manner of driving must be careless. As so construed the statute is not vague.
The majority also argues the statute is vague because whether the manner of driving is likely to endanger “may in some instances be ascertainable *439only after the fact.” This seems an unusual and tenuous argument, since whether a violation has occurred must always be ascertained after the fact by the trier of fact in the light of the evidence. If section 39-669, R. R. S. 1943, is vague, then it seems to me that the same is true of section 39-669.01, R. R. S. 1943, where the proscription is against driving “in such a manner as to indicate an indifferent or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property . . . .” It would also be true of section 39-669.03, R. R. S. 1943, where the disregard must be ‘‘in such a manner as to indicate a willful disregard . . . .”
Various statutes and ordinances relating to speed limits, in addition to prohibiting driving higher than a specified number of miles per hour, also contain general provisions making it unlawful to drive at a speed ‘‘greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.” § 39-662 (1), R. R. S. 1943. This language is no more vague than the careless driving section and I dare say no one can determine beforehand precisely the facts which constitute a violation. No one has ever suggested that section 39-662, R. R. S. 1943, or other similar enactments are unconstitutionally vague and I predict that this court will never say so.
Third, the majority relies upon one of the myths of the law which the courts have long mouthed unthinkingly, i.e., that the statute must be sufficiently definite so persons examining it may be informed of what conduct is prohibited, or as stated in the majority opinion, so the ‘‘person can intelligently choose in advance what course it is lawful for him to pursue.” Such statements are myths because the real reason for the requirement of reasonable certainty is to enable courts to determine after the fact what the lawmakers intended to prohibit and whether or not there has been a violation. Nothing is more elementary in the law than that ignorance of *440a statute is no defense to a charge of its violation. Few people consult the statutes before acting, and then only in highly technical areas such as tax matters and antitrust regulations.
In the very nature of language and human understanding, some concepts, such as careless, reckless, negligent, and greater than reasonable under the circumstances, can be described only in quite general terms. I would hold the statute in question constitutional.
Spencer, Retired Justice, joins in this dissent.