Difference between revisions of "Void for Overbreadth"
(Created page with "If a criminal statute encompasses activity which would be otherwise protected by the U.S. Constitution, a defendant may challenge the provision on grounds that it is overbroad an...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | If a criminal statute encompasses activity which would be otherwise protected by the U.S. Constitution, a defendant may challenge the provision on grounds that it is overbroad and therefore unconstitutional. The defense is sometimes combined with the [[Void for Vagueness|doctrine of vagueness]] but | + | If a criminal statute encompasses activity which would be otherwise protected by the U.S. Constitution, a defendant may challenge the provision on grounds that it is overbroad and therefore unconstitutional. The defense is sometimes combined with the [[Void for Vagueness|doctrine of vagueness]] but the two doctrines are conceptually distinct. |
| − | Overbreadth is most commonly | + | Overbreadth is most commonly raised when a defendant's activity is protected by another Constitutional right, such as Freedom of Speach. For instance, in Coats v. Cincinnati <ref> Coats v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971)</ref> the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a criminal statute which made it a crime for three or more persons to assemble on a sidewalk and annoy others. The court determined that the provision was overbroad because it included some activity that would be protected under the First Amendment of the [[United States Constitution]]. |
---- | ---- | ||
See [[Void for Vagueness]], [[Defenses]] | See [[Void for Vagueness]], [[Defenses]] | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Latest revision as of 23:18, 30 January 2011
If a criminal statute encompasses activity which would be otherwise protected by the U.S. Constitution, a defendant may challenge the provision on grounds that it is overbroad and therefore unconstitutional. The defense is sometimes combined with the doctrine of vagueness but the two doctrines are conceptually distinct.
Overbreadth is most commonly raised when a defendant's activity is protected by another Constitutional right, such as Freedom of Speach. For instance, in Coats v. Cincinnati [1] the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a criminal statute which made it a crime for three or more persons to assemble on a sidewalk and annoy others. The court determined that the provision was overbroad because it included some activity that would be protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
See Void for Vagueness, Defenses
Notes
- ↑ Coats v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971)
