Lanzetta v. New Jersey
306 U.S. 451 (1939)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A penal statute that either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- New Jersey enacted a statute defining a 'gangster' as any person not engaged in a lawful occupation, known to be a member of a gang of two or more persons, who has been previously convicted of a crime or has been convicted three times of being a disorderly person.
- The statute did not define what constitutes a 'gang' beyond stating it consists of 'two or more persons.'
- It also did not define what constitutes 'membership' in a gang or what it means to be 'known' as a member.
- The appellants, including Lanzetta, were individuals who were not engaged in any lawful occupation.
- The appellants were known to be members of a group consisting of two or more persons.
- Each of the appellants had previously been convicted of a crime in the State of Pennsylvania.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants were indicted in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Cape May County, New Jersey, for violating the state's 'gangster' statute.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the trial court sentenced each appellant to prison.
- The appellants appealed the conviction to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which is an intermediate appellate court.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The appellants then appealed to the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, which was the state's highest court at the time.
- The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision.
- The appellants subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a New Jersey statute declaring a person a 'gangster'—based on being known as a member of a 'gang' without a lawful occupation and with prior criminal convictions—violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because its terms are unconstitutionally vague and uncertain?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Butler
Yes. The New Jersey statute violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it is unconstitutionally vague. The terms used in the statute are so indefinite and uncertain that they fail to provide adequate notice of what conduct is prohibited. The word 'gang' has no settled legal meaning and numerous, varied dictionary definitions, some of which are entirely innocent. A person of common intelligence cannot be expected to know what conduct is forbidden when the statute relies on such an ambiguous term. Furthermore, the phrase 'known to be a member' is also uncertain, as it does not specify whether actual or reputed membership is required, nor does it define the standards for what constitutes membership. Because the statute condemns a person's status rather than a specific act, and does so using language that forces individuals to speculate as to its meaning, it is repugnant to the principles of due process.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision in the development of the 'void for vagueness' doctrine under the Due Process Clause. It establishes that a criminal statute must provide fair warning and clear standards to guide both citizens' conduct and law enforcement's application of the law. The ruling prevents legislatures from criminalizing a person's status or associations using ambiguous terms, thereby safeguarding against arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. This precedent is frequently cited in challenges to laws concerning loitering, vagrancy, and association, ensuring that penal statutes precisely define the specific conduct being outlawed.
Unlock the full brief for Lanzetta v. New Jersey