State of Maine v. David Reckards, 113 A.3d 589

David Reckards was indicted for unlawful trafficking and conspiracy involving "alpha-PVP" (bath salts) and moved to dismiss, claiming the statutory definition of "synthetic hallucinogenic drug" was unconstitutionally vague.
The statutory definition at issue described a "derivative of cathinone" using detailed structural-chemistry language; Reckards argued the term "derivative" is ambiguous and too technical for ordinary people.
The State presented chemist testimony that "derivative" encompasses both synthetic (lab-created) and theoretical (structurally derived on paper) meanings; the term also has a dictionary meaning consistent with that view.
Reckards asserted the statute’s complexity and lack of explicit reference to alpha-PVP left ordinary people without fair notice that the drug was prohibited.
The trial court denied the motions; Reckards entered conditional guilty pleas and appealed the denial, preserving the constitutional vagueness claim.
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding the definition was not unconstitutionally vague, in part because the offense statute includes a scienter requirement (knowledge/intent) that cures vagueness concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "derivative" in the statutory definition is unconstitutionally vague	"Derivative" is a chemistry term with multiple meanings; different chemists could reach different conclusions, creating vagueness	The term has ordinary and chemistry meanings (synthetic and theoretical) and dictionary support; chemists agreed on its scope	Not vague — term has ascertainable meanings and is not constitutionally infirm
Whether the statute is too complex for ordinary people to have fair notice (void-for-vagueness)	Statute’s technical, detailed structural language prevents ordinary understanding and fails to show alpha-PVP is illegal	Complexity is mitigated by the scienter requirement; State must prove knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt	Not vague as applied — scienter requirement supplies sufficient clarity and prevents arbitrary enforcement

State v. Haskell, 784 A.2d 4 (establishes de novo review and presumption of constitutionality for statutes)
State v. Aboda, 8 A.3d 719 (void-for-vagueness assessed as applied; focus on whether statute gave defendant notice)
Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (scienter may mitigate vagueness concerns)
United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9 (First Circuit upholding drug regulation as constitutional because of scienter requirement)
United States v. Hassan, 578 F.3d 108 (Second Circuit: adequate scienter saves statutory scheme from void-for-vagueness challenge)