State v. Vaughn
366 S.W.3d 513
| Mo. | 2012Background
- State appeals circuit court order invalidating 565.090.1(5) and (6) as vague and overbroad; state seeks affirmance of broader validity.
- Vaughn charged in Oct. 2010 with burglary (Count I) and harassment (Count II); amended Count II clarifies repeated unwanted communications.
- Prosecution assigns Count I to (6) and Count II to (5); defense argues both parts violate First Amendment and due process.
- Motion court found (5) and (6) vague and overbroad; state appeals, arguing severability and proper construction.
- Court reviews de novo, interprets statutes in light of constitutional limits; analyzes (5) overbreadth and (6) vagueness/constitutionality.
- Final holding: (5) unconstitutional and severed; (6) constitutional as applied with a defined good-cause standard; remanded for proceedings consistent with holding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is 565.090.1(5) overbroad under First Amendment? | State argues it criminalizes substantial protected expression. | Vaughn contends overbreadth despite narrowing attempts. | Overbreadth; severed from statute. |
| Is 565.090.1(6) unconstitutional vagueness or overly broad? | State contends act targets unprotected conduct within First Amendment bounds. | Vaughn asserts vague, discretionary standard and chill on speech. | Constitutional; limited to core unprotected conduct with reasonable notice. |
| Is the 'without good cause' qualifier for (6) sufficiently defined to avoid vagueness? | State relies on established standards to supply notice. | Vaughn argues subjective phrasing invites arbitrary enforcement. | Good cause construed as a reasonable-person standard under circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hess v. Indiana, 403 U.S. 105 (1973) (speech not within narrowly limited categories may be punished)
- Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971) (cannot criminalize speech merely because some find it unwanted)
- Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969) (public expression may not be prohibited for being offensive)
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) (capacity to regulate unwanted speech in sensitive settings)
- Moore v. State, 90 S.W.3d 64 (Mo. banc 2002) (overbreadth analysis requires limiting construction when possible)
- Koetting, 616 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. banc 1981) (utilizes common terms and supports notice in vagueness review)
- Davis, 469 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1971) (concept of 'good cause' provides sufficient notice)