The general policy is clearly expressed at 82 C.J.S. See also 11 Am.Jur., Constitutional Law, Section 152. The void part may be disregarded, and the valid part enforced. The fact that a part of a statute is held to be unconstitutional does not necessarily mean that other parts are also void. When this court got the case back, it bowed to a superior commission if not to superior reasons and held the statute involved therein to be void for vagueness and uncertainty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The present judgment of the Supreme Court of Utah is vacated and cause remanded for proceedings not inconsistent herewith." State v. This court upheld the statute at the first hearing (110 Utah 534), 175 P.2d 724, but the Supreme Court of the United States reversed, holding that the particular section of the statute under which the defendants were being prosecuted might be "so vague and indefinite that it fails adequately to define the offense or give reasonable standards for determining guilt." Since this particular question was not raised by the defendants in the Musser case but was suggested by the United States Supreme Court during argument, the case was remanded to the Utah Supreme Court pursuant to the following language: "We believe we should not pass upon the question raised here until the Supreme Court of Utah has had opportunity to deal with this ultimate issue of federal law and with state law questions relevant to it. It was a case wherein a conspiracy to teach and practice polygamy was charged. That case involved the part of the statute regarding public morals only. The defendants say that subsection (5) is unconstitutional and claim that this court has heretofore so held in the case of State v. (5) To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to trade or commerce, or for the perversion or obstruction of justice or the due administration of the laws they are punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding $1,000. 1953, and so far as material is as follows: The statute under which the defendants were charged is Section 76-12-1, U.C.A. Vincent Guercio, by defendant, Jane Baxter, changing her statement of the facts of said case for money consideration passing from said Vincent Guercio to defendants, Harold Nielsen and Jane Baxter." The defendants appeal from a conviction of "conspiring to commit an act for the obstruction of justice or the due administration of the laws, in that the defendants did conspire to obtain and procure a dismissal of the case of the State of Utah v. HAROLD NIELSEN AND JANE BAXTER, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. THE STATE OF UTAH, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |