Briggs v. StateBriggs v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- McClung
Aрpellant appeals his conviction for possession of а chemical dispensing device, contending that the statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutionally vague. We agree and, acсordingly, reverse and remand for dismissal of the indictment.
TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.06 (Vernon Supp.1986) reаds in part:
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly рossesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:
******
(7) a chemical dispensing device.
A chemical dispensing device is defined as follows:
“Chemical dispensing device” means a device, other than a small chemicаl dispenser sold commercially for personal protectiоn, that is designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of cаusing an adverse psychological or physiological effeсt on a human being.
TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.01(12) (Vernon Supp.1986).
When read without the exception, “other than a smаll chemical dispenser sold commercially for personal protection,” the statute prohibits possession of “a device ... that is designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of causing аn adverse psychological or physiological effect оn a human being.” The scope of this prohibition is almost limitless. It could apply to a handgun, a knife, or even a gruesome mask or voodoo doll. Furthermore, even if the prohibition can be construed to aрply to only chemical dispensers, there is no indication what chemicals are proscribed. It is impossible to determine whether this statute prohibits possession of a device only when it contains mace or tear gas, or whether the prohibition extends to devices containing substances such as insecticide, hairspray, and nitrous oxide.
The statute clearly excepts small chemical dispensers from its prohibition. It fails, however, to give guidance as to what is “small.” It is impossible to determine from the exception what may legally be possessed. Apparently, one may legally possess tear gas but not too much оf it. The legislature has failed to give any guidance as to how much is toо much.
A statute that forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and diffеr as to its application violates the first essential of due prоcess of law. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926); Passmore v. State, 544 S.W.2d 399, 401 (Tex.Crim.App.1976); Baker v. State, 478 S.W.2d 445, 449 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); Ex parte Chernosky, 153 Tex.Crim.R. 52, 217 S.W.2d 673, 674 (1949).
A statute is void for vagueness if it “fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated cоnduct is forbidden by the statute,” Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162, 92 S.Ct. 839, 843, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972); United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617, 74 S.Ct. 808, 811, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954), or if it “encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions.” Papachristou, 405 U.S. at 162, 92 S.Ct. at 843; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97, 60 *38 S.Ct. 736, 741, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 263, 57 S.Ct. 732, 741, 81 L.Ed. 1066 (1937). Either is an independent ground for holding a statute unconstitutional. See Adley v. State, No. 0786-84 (Tex.Crim.App., Nov. 6, 1985) (not yet reported); Cotton v. State, 686 S.W.2d 140 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Goocher v. State, 633 S.W.2d 860 (Tex.Crim.App.1982); Bates v. State, 587 S.W.2d 121 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); McMorris v. State, 516 S.W.2d 927 (Tex.Crim.App.1974).
Our inability to define рrecisely the scope of this prohibition demonstrates that seсtion 46.06(a)(7) is unconstitutionally vague. A criminal statute must “give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is рrohibited, so that he may act accordingly.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). Here, we find no objective standard from which one may gauge his conduct. Further, “if arbitrary and discriminаtory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them.” Id. It is not sufficient to leave enforcement to the sound discretion of the police, trusting them to invokе the law only in appropriate cases. Cotton, 686 S.W.2d at 143. A criminal statute must be precisely drawn so that it eliminates the risk of capricious apрlication rather than fosters it as the present statute does. Cf. Cotton, 686 S.W.2d at 143.
We hоld that section 46.06(a)(7) is unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable as a penal sanction. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for dismissal of the indictment.