Court Opinion

ID: 9655768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:21:19.469976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:21.652781
License: Public Domain

WHITE, Judge,
dissenting.
Section 557.035 increases the penalties for enumerated crimes when the “state believes” they are “knowingly motivated” by race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation or disability. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell,1 the United States Supreme Court sanctioned such sentencing increases, but the statute in question in Mitchell required the state to prove that the defendant “intentionally selected” his victim based upon the discriminatory fac*891tors outlined in the statute.2 To face the higher penalties under Missouri’s statute requires only a subjective belief by the State that the underlying crime was “knowingly motivated” by discriminatory animus. Since discriminatory beliefs and biases are subject to First Amendment protection, a would-be offender would not have notice of when his or her legally protected thoughts might cross into the no-man’s land of the “state’s beliefs” and subject them to enhanced criminal penalties for actions wholly unrelated to those thoughts.
Vagueness occurs where there is insufficient explicit statutory guidance so as to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory applications.3 Since the statute seeks punishment for motives stemming from beliefs and biases which are lawful to hold and express, application of the vagueness doctrine in construing this statute requires greater legislative clarity than in statutes where fundamental rights are not so seriously implicated.4 The subjective nature of this statute, coupled with a lack of guidance as to how to apply it, fosters both arbitrary and discriminatory applications of this law. I would affirm the trial court and hold that section 557.035 is void for vagueness.

. Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 113 S.Ct. 2194, 124 L.Ed.2d 436 (1993). See also R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota, 505 U.S. 377, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992); State v. Vanatter, 869 S.W.2d 754, 756-57 (Mo. banc 1994).

. Mitchell, 508 U.S. at 480-83, 113 S.Ct. 2194.

. State v. Duggar, 806 S.W.2d 407, 408 (Mo. banc 1991); State v. Stokely, 842 S.W.2d 77, 80 (Mo. banc 1992); State ex rel. Williams v. Marsh, 626 S.W.2d 223, 233 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Brown, 660 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Mo. banc 1983); Groyned v. City of Rodcford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972).

. Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 573, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974); Labor’s Educational and Political Club-Independent v. Danforth, 561 S.W.2d 339, 347 (Mo. banc 1977).