66 California opinions name it 4 courts 2007–2026 12 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Sheena K.green2 sentences2024(See In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889 (Sheena K.).) “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential 5 offenders.’” (Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 890 .) “A probation condition ‘must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated,’ if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of v 2024(See In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889 (Sheena K.).) “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential 5 offenders.’” (Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 890 .) “A probation condition ‘must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated,’ if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of v | 17 | 52 |
People v. Castenadagreen2 sentences2021Mandatory Supervision Condition No. 45 is Unconstitutionally Vague The underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of “fair warning.” (People v. Castenada (2000) 23 Cal.4th 743, 751 .) The rule of fair warning consists of “the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders.” (Ibid.) The vagueness doctrine bars enforcement of “ ‘a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men [and women] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to it 2016The underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of "fair warning." (People v. Castenada (2000) 23 Cal.4th 743, 751 .) The rule of fair warning consists of "the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders." (Ibid.) The vagueness doctrine bars enforcement of " 'a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.' " (People ex. rel. | 3 | 15 |
People v. Leongreen2 sentences2015Under the category of prohibiting associations with certain groups of people, conditions have been held to be vague when they prohibit probationers from associating with people disapproved of by probation officers or parents (Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 892 ; In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 911 (Victor L.)), gang members (People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 943, 949-952 (Leon); In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1071-1072 ; In re Justin S. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 811, 816 (Justin S.); Lopez, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at pp. 628-629), felons, ex-felons, and drug sellers and 2014Legal principles regarding probation conditions “A probation condition ‘must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him [or her], and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated,’ if it is to withstand a [constitutional] challenge on the ground of vagueness.” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890 (Sheena K.); People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 943, 949 (Leon).) “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of pr | 3 | 3 |
People v. D.H.green2 sentences2026We find no vagueness but accept the People’s concession on the latter point.3 “ ‘ “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders’ [citation], protections that are ‘embodied in the due process clauses of the federal and California Constitutions.’ ” ’ ” (In re D.H. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 722, 727 .) Emrick insists the first and last sentences of condition no. 24 are inconsistent as to whet 2024Relevant Law Although a juvenile court has broad discretion to fashion probation conditions, “ ‘ “[a] probation condition ‘must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated,’ if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of vagueness.” [Citation.] “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potentia | 2 | 6 |
People v. Victor L.green2 sentences2015(People v. Petty (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1424 (Petty) [protective order modified to state that the defendant “must not ‘knowingly’ come within 100 yards” of the victim]; In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 912-913 [modifying probation condition to prohibit knowing presence of weapons or ammunition].) “[P]robation conditions that implicate constitutional rights must be narrowly drawn” and the knowledge requirement “should not be left to implication.” (People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 102 ; accord, People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 943 .) We conclude that a stay-away p 2015Under the category of prohibiting associations with certain groups of people, conditions have been held to be vague when they prohibit probationers from associating with people disapproved of by probation officers or parents (Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 892 ; In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 911 (Victor L.)), gang members (People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 943, 949-952 (Leon); In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1071-1072 ; In re Justin S. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 811, 816 (Justin S.); Lopez, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at pp. 628-629), felons, ex-felons, and drug sellers and | 2 | 2 |
People v. Shaun R.green2 sentences2023(Id. at p. 889.) “[W]e review constitutional challenges to a probation condition de novo.” (In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143 .) A. Vagueness “ ‘ “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders’ [citation], protections that are ‘embodied in the due process clauses of the federal and California Constitutions.’ ” ’ ” (In re D.H. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 722, 727 (D.H.).) To wit 2016(In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143 .) The underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of “fair warning.” (People v. Castenada (2000) 23 Cal.4th 743, 751 .) The rule of fair warning embodies the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders. | 1 | 6 |
People v. Patelgreen2 sentences2024(See e.g., People v. Patel (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 956, 960-961, fn.4 .) In that case, the court expressed its frustration with the “dismaying regularity” with which it had to revisit the issue of a lack of an express scienter requirement in orders of probation. 2013Thus, he “could unknowingly violate the terms of his probation.” The minor claims these conditions “must be stricken and modified” so as to include a knowledge requirement. “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders’ [citation], protections that are ‘embodied in the due process clauses of the federal and California Constitutions.’ ” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890 .) Th | 1 | 3 |
People v. Kimgreen2 sentences2016(Id. at pp. 887-889.) “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders’ [citation], protections that are ‘embodied in the due process clauses of the federal and California Constitutions. [Citations.]’” (Id. at p. 890.) “California appellate courts have found [some] probation conditions to be unconstitutionally vague or overbroad when they do not require the probationer to have knowledge 2014“Constitutional issues are reviewed de novo.” (In re J.H. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 174, 183 .) Thus, “we review constitutional challenges to a probation condition de novo.” (In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143 .) The “underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ ” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890 .) “The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders’ [citation], protections that are ‘embodied in the due process clauses of the fed | 1 | 3 |
In Re Justin S.green2 sentences2020(Welch, at p. 235; In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887-889 (Sheena K.); In re Justin S. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 811, 814-816 .) In this situation, our review is limited to “a term of probation on the ground of unconstitutional vagueness or overbreadth that is capable of correction without reference to the particular sentencing record developed in the trial court.” (Sheena K., at p. 887.) A. Vagueness Challenge “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the 3 due process concepts of preventing 2015Under the category of prohibiting associations with certain groups of people, conditions have been held to be vague when they prohibit probationers from associating with people disapproved of by probation officers or parents (Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 892 ; In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 911 (Victor L.)), gang members (People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 943, 949-952 (Leon); In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1071-1072 ; In re Justin S. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 811, 816 (Justin S.); Lopez, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at pp. 628-629), felons, ex-felons, and drug sellers and | 1 | 2 |
People v. Garciagreen2 sentences2015(People v. Petty (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1424 (Petty) [protective order modified to state that the defendant “must not ‘knowingly’ come within 100 yards” of the victim]; In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 912-913 [modifying probation condition to prohibit knowing presence of weapons or ammunition].) “[P]robation conditions that implicate constitutional rights must be narrowly drawn” and the knowledge requirement “should not be left to implication.” (People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 102 ; accord, People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 943 .) We conclude that a stay-away p 2015Under the category of prohibiting associations with certain groups of people, conditions have been held to be vague when they prohibit probationers from associating with people disapproved of by probation officers or parents (Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 892 ; In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 911 (Victor L.)), gang members (People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 943, 949-952 (Leon); In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1071-1072 ; In re Justin S. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 811, 816 (Justin S.); Lopez, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at pp. 628-629), felons, ex-felons, and drug sellers and | 1 | 2 |
People v. Mooregreen2 sentences2015(See Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 889 .) “A probation condition ‘must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated,’ if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of vagueness.” (Id. at p. 890.) “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders’ [citation], protections that are ‘ 2015(See Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 889 .) “A probation condition ‘must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated,’ if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of vagueness.” (Id. at p. 890.) “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders’ [citation], protections that are ‘ | 1 | 2 |
Connally v. General Construction Co.green1 sentence2023I, § 7.) Rooted in the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Connally v. General Const. Co. (1926) 269 U.S. 385, 391 (Connally), in its most traditional application, “[t]he vagueness doctrine bars enforcement of ‘“a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] A vague law ‘not only fails to provide adequate notice to those who must observe its strictures, but also “impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges | 1 | 1 |
People v. Austingreen1 sentence2023I, § 7.) Rooted in the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Connally v. General Const. Co. (1926) 269 U.S. 385, 391 (Connally), in its most traditional application, “[t]he vagueness doctrine bars enforcement of ‘“a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] A vague law ‘not only fails to provide adequate notice to those who must observe its strictures, but also “impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Turnergreen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pettygreen1 sentence2015(People v. Petty (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1424 (Petty) [protective order modified to state that the defendant “must not ‘knowingly’ come within 100 yards” of the victim]; In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 912-913 [modifying probation condition to prohibit knowing presence of weapons or ammunition].) “[P]robation conditions that implicate constitutional rights must be narrowly drawn” and the knowledge requirement “should not be left to implication.” (People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 102 ; accord, People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 943 .) We conclude that a stay-away p | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mosesgreen1 sentence2015Under the category of prohibiting associations with certain groups of people, conditions have been held to be vague when they prohibit probationers from associating with people disapproved of by probation officers or parents (Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 892 ; In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 911 (Victor L.)), gang members (People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 943, 949-952 (Leon); In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1071-1072 ; In re Justin S. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 811, 816 (Justin S.); Lopez, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at pp. 628-629), felons, ex-felons, and drug sellers and | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Jimi A.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Byron B.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2024(See In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889 (Sheena K.).) “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential 5 offenders.’” (Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 890 .) “A probation condition ‘must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated,’ if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of v 2016The Challenged Probation Conditions Should Be Modified “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders.’” (Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 890 .) “A probation condition ‘must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated,’ if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of vagueness. | 5 | 2013–2024 |
People v. Freitas
green
2 sentences2016I thought I said that, but -- not associate with anyone he knows are gang members. [¶] Anyway, it’s always knowingly, should be knowingly, but the burden -- the standard of proof on a probation violation is preponderance of the evidence. [¶] If you know the people you’re with are 2 Hells Angels, you shouldn’t be with them. [¶] THE DEFENDANT: (Defendant nods head.)” “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate not 2014“Constitutional issues are reviewed de novo.” (In re J.H. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 174, 183 .) Thus, “we review constitutional challenges to a probation condition de novo.” (In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143 .) The “underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ ” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890 .) “The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders’ [citation], protections that are ‘embodied in the due process clauses of the fed | 4 | 2013–2016 |
The People v. Pirali
green
2 sentences2023(People v. Navarro (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1301 .) In People v. Connors (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 729 (Connors), on which defendant relies, the defendant’s probation conditions included a condition that read, in part, “ ‘[Y]ou’re not to possess any sexually explicit materials for the purposes of arousing prurient interest based upon the evidence presented here.’ ” (Id. at p. 734.) On appeal, addressing the defendant’s vagueness and overbreadth challenges, the reviewing court stated: “This court addressed similar issues in People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341 (Pirali). 2016In People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341 (Pirali), the court held that a probation condition prohibiting the defendant from “purchasing or possessing pornographic or sexually explicit materials as defined by the probation officer” was vague without a requirement that defendant have advance knowledge of what was required of him. | 3 | 2016–2023 |
People v. Lent
green
2 sentences2022We agree. “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders.’ ” (Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 890.) “A probation condition ‘must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated,’ if it is to 3 Defendant recognizes that since defense counsel made no objection to this probation conditio 2014(See Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 486 .) Regarding the constitutionality of the condition, “[a] probation condition „must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated,‟ if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of vagueness. [Citation.]” (In re Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 890.) The “underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of „fair warning.‟ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of „the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement a | 3 | 2014–2022 |
People Ex Rel. Gallo v. Acuna
green
2 sentences2016Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1115 .) "[A]bstract legal commands must be applied in a specific context," and, although not admitting of " 'mathematical certainty,' " the language used must have " 'reasonable specificity.' " (Id. at pp. 1116-1117.) We conclude that, as phrased, probation condition No. 10(o) prohibiting Liggons from possessing any "toys, video games, or similar items" is unconstitutionally vague. 2013Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090 .) "[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of 'fair warning.' " (Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 890 .) The rule of fair warning consists of the due process principles of preventing arbitrary or discriminatory application by policemen, judges and juries as well as providing adequate notice to those who must observe its strictures. | 2 | 2013–2016 |
In Re Jh
green
2 sentences2015“Constitutional issues are reviewed de novo.” (In re J.H. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 174, 183 .) We accordingly “review constitutional challenges to a probation condition de novo.” (In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143 .) The “underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ ” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890 .) “The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders’ [citation], protections that are ‘embodied in the due process clauses of t 2014“Constitutional issues are reviewed de novo.” (In re J.H. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 174, 183 .) Thus, “we review constitutional challenges to a probation condition de novo.” (In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143 .) The “underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ ” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890 .) “The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders’ [citation], protections that are ‘embodied in the due process clauses of the fed | 2 | 2014–2015 |
In Re HC
green
2 sentences2015Under the category of prohibiting associations with certain groups of people, conditions have been held to be vague when they prohibit probationers from associating with people disapproved of by probation officers or parents (Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 892 ; In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 911 (Victor L.)), gang members (People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 943, 949-952 (Leon); In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1071-1072 ; In re Justin S. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 811, 816 (Justin S.); Lopez, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at pp. 628-629), felons, ex-felons, and drug sellers and 2013(Ibid.; In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1070 .) "A probation condition 'must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated,' if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of vagueness. [Citation.] A probation condition that imposes limitations on a person's constitutional right must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad." (Sheena K., at p. 890.) Probation conditions should be given the meaning that | 2 | 2013–2015 |
People v. P.O.
green
1 sentence2024Relevant Law Although a juvenile court has broad discretion to fashion probation conditions, “ ‘ “[a] probation condition ‘must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated,’ if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of vagueness.” [Citation.] “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potentia | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Navarro
green
1 sentence2023(People v. Navarro (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1301 .) In People v. Connors (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 729 (Connors), on which defendant relies, the defendant’s probation conditions included a condition that read, in part, “ ‘[Y]ou’re not to possess any sexually explicit materials for the purposes of arousing prurient interest based upon the evidence presented here.’ ” (Id. at p. 734.) On appeal, addressing the defendant’s vagueness and overbreadth challenges, the reviewing court stated: “This court addressed similar issues in People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341 (Pirali). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Connors
green
1 sentence2023(People v. Navarro (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1301 .) In People v. Connors (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 729 (Connors), on which defendant relies, the defendant’s probation conditions included a condition that read, in part, “ ‘[Y]ou’re not to possess any sexually explicit materials for the purposes of arousing prurient interest based upon the evidence presented here.’ ” (Id. at p. 734.) On appeal, addressing the defendant’s vagueness and overbreadth challenges, the reviewing court stated: “This court addressed similar issues in People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341 (Pirali). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. MacIel
green
1 sentence2020A statute . . . cannot be held void for uncertainty if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language.” ’ Therefore, ‘a party must do more than identify some instances in which the application of the statute may be uncertain or ambiguous; he must demonstrate that “the law is impermissibly vague in all of its applications.” ’ Stated differently, ‘ “[a] statute is not void simply because there may be difficulty in determining whether some marginal or hypothetical act is covered by its language.” ’ ” (People v. Morgan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 593 , 605–606, citations and italics | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Morgan
green
1 sentence2020A statute . . . cannot be held void for uncertainty if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language.” ’ Therefore, ‘a party must do more than identify some instances in which the application of the statute may be uncertain or ambiguous; he must demonstrate that “the law is impermissibly vague in all of its applications.” ’ Stated differently, ‘ “[a] statute is not void simply because there may be difficulty in determining whether some marginal or hypothetical act is covered by its language.” ’ ” (People v. Morgan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 593 , 605–606, citations and italics | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Townsend
green
1 sentence2016It is not a principle designed to convert into a constitutional dilemma the practical difficulties in drawing criminal statutes both general enough to take into account a variety of human conduct and sufficiently specific to provide fair warning that certain kinds of conduct are prohibited.” (Colten v. Kentucky (1972) 407 U.S. 104, 110 .) “Void for vagueness simply means that criminal responsibility should not attach where one could not reasonably understand that his [or her] contemplated conduct is proscribed. [Citation.]” (United States v. National Dairy Products Corp. (1963) 372 U.S. 29, 32 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. National Dairy Products Corp.
green
1 sentence2016It is not a principle designed to convert into a constitutional dilemma the practical difficulties in drawing criminal statutes both general enough to take into account a variety of human conduct and sufficiently specific to provide fair warning that certain kinds of conduct are prohibited.” (Colten v. Kentucky (1972) 407 U.S. 104, 110 .) “Void for vagueness simply means that criminal responsibility should not attach where one could not reasonably understand that his [or her] contemplated conduct is proscribed. [Citation.]” (United States v. National Dairy Products Corp. (1963) 372 U.S. 29, 32 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Colten v. Kentucky
green
1 sentence2016It is not a principle designed to convert into a constitutional dilemma the practical difficulties in drawing criminal statutes both general enough to take into account a variety of human conduct and sufficiently specific to provide fair warning that certain kinds of conduct are prohibited.” (Colten v. Kentucky (1972) 407 U.S. 104, 110 .) “Void for vagueness simply means that criminal responsibility should not attach where one could not reasonably understand that his [or her] contemplated conduct is proscribed. [Citation.]” (United States v. National Dairy Products Corp. (1963) 372 U.S. 29, 32 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Olguin green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Rodriguez green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Barajas green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.