Court Opinion

ID: 9566510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:40:16.024614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:10.024825
License: Public Domain

Undercofler, Justice,
dissenting to Division I (a) and the judgment in case no. 37387.
I must agree with the trial judge that Code Ann. § 26-2308 (a) is unconstitutional because facially vague. It makes criminal the restraint of free and open competition in a transaction with the State. However, restraint of free and open competition is not defined and it is not the judiciary’s prerogative to define it and thereby establish a crime. This is a legislative function and responsibility. Some respectable authority even questions whether the phrase is capable of definition. Thus, persons must guess whether their business practices involve them in a transaction with the State and whether these practices tire legitimate or criminal. Our constitution demands an identifiable offense before a person can be convicted and incarcerated. The statute fails to meet that standard.
I am authorized to state that Justice Smith joins in this dissent.