37 Or. App. 419 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Due process requires that penal statutes provide an adequate basis for judicial determination of whether particular conduct is criminal. The statute must establish a standard for the trial court's decision whether to submit a case to the jury and it must provide a framework for the jury's determination of guilt or innocence. If the terms of a statute are so elastic that the determination of guilt or innocence in individual prosecutions must necessarily be ad hoc, the statute is unconstitutionally vague. State v. Hodges, 254 Or. 21, 25, 27-28 , 457 P.2d 491 (1969); State v. Sanderson, 33 Or. App. 173, 176-77 , 575 P.2d 1025 (1978). "A determination of whether a statute is void for vagueness necessarily involves questions of degree. The legislature need not define an offense with such exactitude that a person could determine in advance whether specific conduct in all possible factual circumstances will be found to be an offense. State v. Samter, 4 Or. App. 349, 352 , 479 P.2d 237 (1971). The standard need not be so exact that persons affected by it will never be required to hazard their freedom upon a correct assessment of the manner in which a jury will resolve a question of degree. State of Oregon v. Wojahn, 204 Or. 84, 137 , 282 P.2d 675 (1955). * *." State v. Williams, 37 Or. App. 419, 422-23 , 587 P.2d 1049 (1978).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 47 Or. App. 937 - City of Portland v. Aziz