Alice Lee v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 429
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- August 6, 2010, Williams and Kemp hosted a dog fight in Indianapolis; police obtained a no-knock warrant and entered around 10:20 p.m., finding fighting dogs and a training area in the garage; Lee was among about 24 spectators and police found her pit bull in her vehicle.
- The State charged Lee on August 10, 2010 with (1) Class D felony promotion of, use of, or attendance with an animal at an animal fighting contest and (2) Class A misdemeanor attendance at an animal fighting contest.
- Lee claimed she was at the home only briefly to pick up her dog and did not know of the fighting contest; she testified she fled into the garage when police arrived.
- Lee was tried in a bench trial starting October 24, 2011; the court dismissed the D felony and found her guilty of the Class A misdemeanor for attendance.
- On appeal, Lee challenged Indiana Code § 35-46-3-10 as unconstitutionally vague, while the State argued the issue was waived for failure to move to dismiss.
- The appellate court ultimately held the claim waived and, on the merits, upheld the statute’s constitutionality and Lee’s conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 35-46-3-10 is unconstitutionally vague. | Lee argues the term 'attends' is vague and permits arbitrary enforcement. | State contends waivers apply, and even on merits the statute provides adequate notice. | Vagueness claim waived; statute constitutionally clear. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 868 N.E.2d 464 (Ind. 2007) (due process requires clear prohibitions in criminal statutes)
- Downey v. State, 476 N.E.2d 123 (Ind. 1985) (line between trivial and substantial acts must be drawn)
- Lombardo v. State, 738 N.E.2d 653 (Ind. 2000) (statutory notice presumed; doubts resolve in favor of validity)
- Rhinehardt v. State, 477 N.E.2d 89 (Ind. 1985) (statutes provide sufficiently definite warnings)
- Johnson v. State, 648 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (intent may be inferred from conduct; not arbitrary)
- Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954 (Ind. 1993) (enforcement standards must be intelligible)