Cited by

The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a statute be defined “with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” (quotation omitted); see also BFI Waste Sys.

This type of challenge “argues that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to the individual’s conduct.”

“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that ‘a penal statute define the criminal offense with su fficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is pr ohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’” State v. Bussmann , (quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S. Ct. 1855, 1858 (1983)).

“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” (quotation omitted).

4 “The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” State v. Bussman

With respect to undefined terms, we observe that “due process 23 requirements are satisfied by specifying standards of conduct in terms that have acquired meaning involving reasonably definite standards either according to the common law or by long and general usage.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Bussmann , , 82 (Minn. 2007).

“The void-for-vagueness doctrine re quires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand 4 what conduct is prohibited and in a manne r that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” State v. Bussmann , (citation and quotation omitted).

14, 1995), leaving enforcers “free to decide, without any legally fixed standards, what is prohibited and what is not in each particular case,”

The void-for- vagueness doctrine “requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that “[c]onstitutional challenges are questions of law”).

“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” (quotation omitted).

The court of appeals also concluded that a knowledge requirement would harmonize the clergy sexual conduct statute with “other provisions in section 609.344, which do not presume a vulnerable victim but require proof of the preexistence of a mental or emotional condition or that the actor uses deceptive conduct.” Wenthe III, d at 233 ( (Hanson, J.) (plurality opinion)).

The void- for-vagueness doctrine, which arises under the federal and state due-process clauses, “requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” d 79, 83 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).

See State v. Bussmann (Bussmann I), (discussing section 609.344, which generally criminalizes sexual penetration in various defined situations and removes consent as a defense in many of these situations).

“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” (quotation omitted).

“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that ‘a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’ ” (quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct.

“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” (quotation omitted).

Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional, and an appellate court’s “power to declare a statute unconstitutional should be exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.” (quotation omitted).