State v Metzger: Was his act indecent, modest or filthy? Case Nebraska 1982 1. State the exact wording of the offense Douglas Metzger was convicted of? 2. State the test the court used to decide whether the ordinance was void for vagueness. 3.According to the majority, why was the ordinance vague? 4. In your opinion, was the statute clear to a reasonable person? Back up your answer with facts and arguments from the information from the void for vagueness discussion in the text.
State v Metzger: Was his act indecent, modest or filthy? Case Nebraska 1982; State the exact wording of the offense Douglas Metzger was convicted of?
In State v. Metzger, the court had to determine whether the defendant's actions constituted as "indecent", "obscene", or "filthy" under Nebraska law. The defendant, Douglas Metzger, was convicted of violating a state statute that criminalized anyone who "[makes] an obscene or indecent exposure of his person in any public place."
The court found that the defendant's actions did not meet the definition of "obscene" or "indecent" under Nebraska law. However, the court did find that the defendant's actions could be classified as "filthy" under the statute. The court noted that the defendant's actions were "disgusting and offensive to the senses", and that they would likely cause public alarm or distress. As such, the court found that the defendant's actions met the definition of "filthy" under Nebraska law, and upheld his conviction.
Copyright © 2012 - 2024 Apaxresearchers - All Rights Reserved.