State v. Myers, 857 N.W.2d 597

On June 8, 2013, Douglas Myers was stopped after a trooper radar-recorded him driving 112 mph; he was intoxicated (.131% BAC) and had three small children in the vehicle. No physical injuries occurred to the children.
Myers stipulated to the underlying facts (including alcohol and marijuana positive tests) but the State agreed no actual "abuse, torture, torments or cruel punishments" occurred.
A Meade County grand jury indicted Myers on three counts under SDCL 26-10-1 (abuse of a minor), among other charges; Myers pleaded guilty to a third-offense DUI as part of a plea agreement and submitted to a bench trial on one child-abuse count on stipulated facts.
The circuit court convicted Myers under SDCL 26-10-1 on the theory he had "exposed" the children to needless risk and sentenced him to five years (to run concurrent with DUI sentence).
Myers appealed, arguing SDCL 26-10-1 is unconstitutionally vague because it does not define "expose," and that vagueness allows arbitrary enforcement. The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SDCL 26-10-1 is unconstitutionally vague for failing to define "expose"	Statute affords adequate notice; words carry ordinary meaning and courts may rely on that meaning	Myers: "Expose" is undefined, so ordinary people cannot know what conduct is prohibited; statute invites arbitrary enforcement	Statute is not unconstitutionally vague; "expose" conveys ordinary meaning (subjecting a child to needless risk) and gives adequate notice
Whether vagueness permits arbitrary/prosecutorial discretion	State: ordinary meaning limits application; hypothetical benign acts (e.g., taking child to a violent movie) do not qualify as needless risk	Myers: vagueness gives police/prosecutors unfettered discretion to criminalize broad conduct	Court rejected the claim; context and ordinary meaning prevent unfettered discretion; statute establishes minimal guidelines
Whether statute is vague as-applied to Myers's conduct (driving 112 mph while intoxicated with children)	State: on these facts, children were subjected to needless risk—statute valid as applied	Myers: lack of physical injury undermines meaning of "expose" and supports vagueness	As-applied challenge fails; Myers's conduct clearly falls within "expose" (needless risk) and is constitutionally prosecutable

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (statute vagueness standard: notice and prevention of arbitrary enforcement)
Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (vagueness and limits on discretionary enforcement)
City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (invalidating vague loitering ordinance where statute failed to delineate covered conduct)
State v. Asmussen, 668 N.W.2d 725 (S.D. 2003) (review standard for constitutional challenges to statutes)
State v. Hoffman, 430 N.W.2d 910 (S.D. 1988) (upholding SDCL 26-10-1 against vagueness challenge)
State v. Biays, 402 N.W.2d 697 (S.D. 1987) (double jeopardy discussion; distinguished on relevance to vagueness)
State v. Dale, 439 N.W.2d 98 (S.D. 1989) (criminal statutes need not define every word; ordinary meaning applies)
State v. Outka, 844 N.W.2d 598 (S.D. 2014) (as-applied vagueness review focuses on case-specific facts rather than facial invalidation)