*1 thеy regret Powell sense of whatever were Mrs. speech to claim free right of Amendment, sentence, suspension enjoy and the First heirship any penalty imposed, over others no more way precedence takes suffer sort of right given judge than another that meted out allows invasion of Amendment, separated Logan City Court. in the same First interstices, grammatical only by —that CALLISTER, freely peaceably to assemble. EL- right TUCKETT LETT, may that one use JJ., conceivable concur. swords, shields, that Amend- —or —of punish CROCKETT, protect J., himself or to C.
ment concurs in the may be, in turn advеrsary, case who as the sult. right employ a second
may
demand
rights
We think
in like fashion.
sword
twins,
are identical
therein
or interdictions
the other.
—one no master of
4, supra, the trial
noted in footnote
As is
sentencing
indicated
defendants
judge,
in a less TRITT, D.O., Defendan A. G. t Appellant. saying, this upheld. convictions were so the sol- kindly, jurist demonstrated beloved No. 11523. signi- he of which was created. id stuff Supreme of Utah. Court forgiveness and a desire fied a sense of mercy. Jan. temper justice His statement this re- since premonitional, almost day away the 11th spected jurist passed on shortly he uttered September after
the words found in the footnote. what a
It is none this court’s business way succeeding judge might assess penalty case, the absence оf Jones, court, under the Judge but this cir- case, cumstances have no of this
9an prove the necessary intent, criminal defendant relies on Sec. U.C.A. 1953:
In every public crime or offense there must exist a joint union or operation intent, act and negli- criminal gence. McRae, Hаtch, Robert McRae & City, for Salt Lake defendant- facts as shown Richardson^ are record
appellant. Stephen Long, C. years age, went to defendant, the office of the who Atty. Romney, Gen., B. Vernon Lauren is an osteopathic physician. He told Beasley, Gen., Atty. Asst. N. Salt Lake Francisco; defendant he San City, plaintiff-respondent. service; that he been in the had been had time; working in Francisco for San CROCKETT, Chief Justice. had been to a doctor had been going who guilty in found The defendant was me,” “subscribing drug and that [sic] County of Lake Court of Salt Juvenile Long drug. he wаnted the same Mr. After contributing to the *3 offense T. had his name written out as “Thomas knowingly provided that in he minor Dugan” age and his him allowing prescriptions minor with said gave prescription. wrote a There- and him depres- quantity of an excessive access Long after made frequent Mr. visits consisting of drugs stimulant sant and pre- the defendant’s office and obtained barbiturates; aided amphetamines scriptions drugs for these which he had to violate juvenile encouraged the pharmacies. filled at various A Dr. a 58-17-14.13, using U.C.A.1953 Sec. T. quanti- that Weston testified the James drugs. said procuring in nаme false drugs prescribed by ties of thus de- the juvenile fendant in greatly for the were defendant upon the which basis The any possible proper usage the excess of dis- of conviction reversal the seeks of latter could have made them. alternative, charge, or, in thе the missal of important is have in that the trial, did not af- It mind is that the State a new charge of intent the defendant stands con- which firmatively prove his criminal de- contributing a of to the victed that he individual was showing that knew the ways: pro- in linquency a a minor false of two that he was and/or prеscriptions excessive support viding for him with drugs. In procure the name drugs; named harmful quantities the failed that the State arguments encouraging appear him to aiding and But does the also therewith; did not make name in connection effort use a false to determine Long whether juvеnile, should be sustained a conviction nor whether be- findings giving he was supports his true name if evidence and address that he contrib- in connection with requesting doubt these yond a reasonable numer- in prescriptions. minor ous of the But he did delinquency uted to the know ways dangerous stated. were and that he was either or both
prescribing quantities. excessive difficulty the defend Upon survey our of the in record necessity of urging position ant’s harmony with the traditional rule of re intent, showing a criminal affirmatively requires view which us to consider all of he en quoted, is above 76-1-20 under by the the facts and circumstances shown crim “or clause tirely ignores the final evidence, and the inferences rea that could concededly imports negligence.” This inal therefrom, light sonable be derived negligence than something more serious judgment favorable to the the trial in civil liability predicated
upon which
beyond
finding
court
there is
for
basis
blameworthy
wrongs.
connotes
reasonable doubt that
the defendant was
disregard
careless
shows
guilty
legal duty and for
for adherence
of a minor.
safety
others.1
rights and
appropriate
It is deemed
to make
juve-
that he was
Except for the fact
regard
certain
to the dis
observations
four months
having turned 17 about
nile
First,
sent:
the defendant did
raise
revealing
very
previously, the record is not
statute,
validity
of the
issue as to
Long.
appearance
Stephen
about
court;
еither
the court below or
response
to such a
the witness
justification
and therefore we can see no
replied:
Keith Baxter
Second, and
dealing
with that issue.3
closely
that,
“Tall,
to the above is
in con
thin, fairly
Pim-
related
fellow.
young
formity
principle
judicial
with the
ples on his fаce.”
County
Lingman,
Sew
Hamilton
Salt Lake
3. See
v.
(1939).
See State
erage Imp.
Dist. No.
15 Utah 2d
See also: State
P.2d 457
*4
235,
McMahan,
240,
therein cit
and authorities
P.2d 156
390 P.2d
Idaho
62
57
appreciated
507,
(1937) ;
People,
are some
that there
ed.
v.
137 Colo.
Goodell
exceptions,
279;
State,
not
here. Sеe 5 Am.
material
79 Okl.
327 P.2d
Chandler v.
311,
323,
therein cited.
at
and cases
QgQ
straint,
gence
the court should not invalidate
judgment
and
who desire to do so
statute if the
on
case can be decided
other
difficulty
would have
governing
no
grounds.4
their
the statute.8 This has
particular application to the defendant’s
present
foregoing
The
seem
points up
conduct and
why
another reason
insuperable procedural
to the at
obstacles
the reaching out
impairing
the statute
Howevеr,
on the statute in this
tack
case.
would be ill
advised
we further observe that
if those ob
even
case.
exist,
prop
not
stacles did
and we could
erly
question,
consider the merits of the
we
Even if the defendant had com
agree
plained
could not
the statute is invalid.
vagueness
about the
of the stat
that all
ute,
The foundational
here are
position
rules
he is in no
it
attack
on
statute;
validity
presumptions favor
of the
that ground.
generally
held that
may
that will
be declared unconstitu
even
aif
statute
be unconstitutional
beyond
applied
tional
found to be so
unless
a rea
to certain
individuals
situa
"delinquency”
sonable doubt.5 The terms
tions it will not be
stricken down at
“contributing
delinquency”
behest of one
adversely
who is not
af
applied to
many
minors has for
decades
Assuming
fected
the defect.9
that there
widespread usage
had such
clear
give
may
as to
be conduct of some nature which
meaning6
understandable
it de would fall in doubtful areas as to whether
aid, encourage
notes actions that will
in
constitutes
delin
minor,
volve
con
quency
children
conduct which is
unnecessary
it is
for us
law,
trary
contrary
which is so
tо the
to be here concerned with conduct in such
generally accepted
decency
twilight
standards of
zones
charge
because the
against
morality
result will be sub
its
is not of
character.
mental,
stantially
moral or
harmful
conduct here
would amount
physical well-being of the child.7
con
This
crime,
commission of
sufficiently
whatsoever,
notation of
those terms is
well
definition
con
constitutes
persons
ordinary
known that
intelli-
tributing to
aof minor.
City
Perkins,
992;
1,
Friedlander,
4.
Lake
v.
See Salt
9
v.
Utah
State
141 Wash.
317,
1106;
(1926).
2d
343 P.2d
state-
see
P.
250
453
369,
Packard,
ment 5 Am.Jur.2d at 311.
122
See State v.
Utah
Ogden City, etc.,
561,
5. Newсomb v.
121 Utah
250 P.2d
therein
and authorities
503,
of 18 providing said minor with law, and also conduct which tend prescriptions allowing him an excessive cause a child to become or remain delin- quantity depressant and stimulant quent. respeсt proposition to the first consisting amphetamines' and bar legislature by would seem that the biturates. The defendant was also words, aids, “induces, encourages,” or complaint aiding encourag with knowingly acts intended these be or ing juvenile the said to violate Section 58- intentionаlly part As to the done. second 17-14.13, U.C.A.1953, in that prohibits by of the statute which juvenile the said used pro a false name in an adult which child to tends cause a drugs. curing said by is claimed delinquent, become remain is of these acts vague meaning course unless provisions violated the of Seсtion 55-10-80 term, “delinquent,” supplied other (1), in part fol reads sources. : lows against Offenses children adults— Prior U.C.A. Section following definition: courts —Penal- contained the Jurisdiction defect, “delinquent child” include: offense,2 The words fails define a criminal exception part of that of the stаt any state law A child who has violated ute inducing, aiding which makes or en regulation of a sub- ordinance couraging a child violate an of a law the state. division of fense under the section above referred way- being A child who reason of *6 to. Our attention has not been direсted to uncon- habitually ward or disobedient is any decision court which defines of this parent, guardian trolled cus- or terms, or “delinquent,” “delinquency” the todian. child,” a aid of “delinquent without the habitually A child who is truant from statutory statute, nor do we find other school or home. exception definitions the of Section with deports A to child who so himself as U.C.A.1953, 76-42-5, amended, which as injure endanger or the morals health or purchase possession deals with the of himself or others. tobacco minors. 1965, In legislature undertook to revise strong public policy in favor There is a the statutes pertaining juveniles ju- protecting children from acts which venile courts. The section above referred child,” defining “delinquent term or might encourage laws them violate repealed legislature failed, per- and the nevertheless, conduct, engage in immoral haps by inаdvertence, incorporate public policy also a which there is new act a “delinquency” definition of penal definite and quires that a statute be “delinquent child.” The offense con- to the end that who would certain tributing to the delinquency of a minor guidance from law-аbiding be can find was unknown to the and ex- common law asked to language are not used. We only by provi- ists statutory now reason of dealing a but are with invalidate statute we dealing subject.1 sions with the from the action void resulted statutory Without a definition of the deleting prior defini- legislaturе its terms, “delinquency,” “delinquent,” “delinquency” the statutes. tion Section as problems treatment of view of subject challenge on constitutional vagueness appeal apparent to me grounds for because of raised on 82, 13, p. 69, Ariz., In 1. 43 C.J.S. Infants v. 86 Ariz. 340 § Brockmueller (Alaska) p. State, 992; 98, fants P.2d Andеrson v. § Musser, 669; Roessler, N.M. 223 P.2d P.2d v. 58 2. State v. 384 State 351; Barone, (Or.) 193; Hodges, State v. 457 P.2d 266 P.2d Palmer, Randall, (Fla.) 490; 491; 124 of Pa. v. So.2d State v. Commonwealth 270; Pa.Super. A.2d 232 Or. that the of the statute section under which drugs without ascertaining first pa- complaint was laid fails state an tient’s true name and address. offense insofar as the defendant is I would reverse. CALLISTER, J., concurs in the dissent- likely minor. that the statute is valid ing opinion. inducing insofar relates to an adult violating a law or aids and HENRIOD, J., participate does not here-
encourages However, such violation. in. above, opinion I
mentioned am of the language its use of the only punish above referred to intended to induce, aid, knowingly those who en- courage the commission of an offense.3 case,
In this
while it is uncontradicted that
fore knowledge intent need not be shown. I do not believe the in-
tended that result. a holding Such require physicians practitioners and other
of the healing arts peril to act at their patient by treating prescribing controlled Cutshaw, Ariz.App. 210,
3. State v.