Court Opinion

ID: 9773296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:41:34.863276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:51.720276
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting. Franklin D. Martin was convicted of First degree battery in violation of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-601 (c) (Supp. 1975). This section is part of the Arkansas Criminal Code which was adopted effective January 1, 1976, and the appropriate parts of the statute are: (1) A person commits battery in the first degree if . . . (c) he causes serious physical injury to another person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. . . . The appellant raises the issue that this statute is unconstitutional because it is vague and does not provide a person sufficient notice of the prohibited act. It is a principle of law that a criminal statute must give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of the forbidden conduct. U.S. v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (1954). The phrase “circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life” is not defined in the new criminal code. The language is obviously vague and it is difficult to believe that a person of ordinary intelligence could readily conceive of the criminal conduct described. It may be that attorneys, judges and legal scholars have no doubts as to the meaning of each and every word, but that is not the test. The legal arguments of the majority opinion and the concurring opinion are evidence enough of the utter futility these words will cause anyone, attempting to justify their “clear and simple” meaning. I Find that the phrase can have no real meaning by which a juror or an individual accused of such conduct could really understand what it means. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority and would find that the statute in question is void as unconstitutional in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 1 would reverse the decision of the lower court and dismiss the case.