Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Long v. State
Citations: 680 S.W.2d 686; 284 Ark. 21; 1984 Ark. LEXIS 1895Docket: CR 84-117
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; November 5, 1984; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Rodney Long appealed his conviction for violating the Omnibus DWI Act of 1983, arguing that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the conviction, asserting jurisdiction to address the statute's constitutionality. The Omnibus DWI Act redefined illegal driving behavior, distinguishing between two offenses: (a) driving while intoxicated and (b) driving with a blood alcohol content of .10% or more. Long specifically challenged subsection (a), which makes it unlawful for an intoxicated person to operate a motor vehicle. The court emphasized that due process requires statutes to provide a definite standard of conduct and enforcement. It found that subsection (a) satisfies these due process requirements by offering fair warning of the prohibited conduct, as the term "intoxicated" is clearly defined to indicate when a person's ability to drive is substantially impaired. The definition warns individuals of the legal consequences of driving after consuming alcohol to a degree that poses a danger to themselves or others. The court concluded that the statute's language is sufficiently clear to meet constitutional standards, rejecting the notion that it requires impossible specificity. A law is considered vague if it allows law enforcement or factfinders to determine what is prohibited without clear standards. The definition of intoxicated in 75-2502(a) provides an adequate standard for police enforcement and determining guilt. Subsection 75-2503(a) is upheld as not being unconstitutionally vague. Under 75-2503(b), intoxication is not an element of the offense; instead, driving with a blood alcohol content of .10% or more constitutes a per se violation. The court also rejects the appellant's argument regarding the admission of police testimony about intoxication, clarifying that Rule 704 permits opinion testimony on ultimate issues. Although the testimony addressed the ultimate issue, it did not impose a legal conclusion, thus no error occurred in its admission. Additionally, the court notes a procedural issue regarding the felony charge for driving while intoxicated, which was improperly filed as a traffic ticket in municipal court without a proper information or indictment, as required by the Arkansas Constitution. The ruling affirms the lower court's decision.