Lock v. Falkenstine

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
1963 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 133, 380 P.2d 278, 1963 OK CR 32 (1963)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

A penal statute must be sufficiently explicit to inform those subject to it what conduct will render them liable to its penalties; if a statute is so vague that men of ordinary intelligence must guess at its meaning, it violates due process.

Facts:

Oklahoma law (Title 21 O.S.A. § 1682) made it a misdemeanor to maliciously instigate or encourage any fight between "animals" or to encourage an animal to attack another.
The statute in question was originally adopted in 1890 and did not explicitly define the term "animal" nor did it specifically mention gamecocks or fowls.
The Petitioners were accused of fighting gamecocks (roosters) and were charged with violating this statute.
The specific biological classification of gamecocks as "animals" was technically accurate but legally ambiguous in the context of criminal law.
Other Oklahoma criminal statutes dealing with larceny clearly distinguished between "domestic animals" and "domestic fowls," suggesting a legislative ability to differentiate between the species.

Procedural Posture:

The State filed misdemeanor charges against the Petitioners in the County Court of Blaine County, presided over by Judge Allen Falkenstine.
The Petitioners filed an original action for a Writ of Prohibition in the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma to prevent the County Judge from proceeding to trial.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is the Oklahoma statute prohibiting the instigation of fights between "animals" sufficiently definite and certain to be applied to gamecock fighting without violating the constitutional requirement of due process?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Nix

No. The court held that the statute is unconstitutionally vague when applied to cockfighting. While the court acknowledged that biologically a fowl is an animal, the legal standard requires that a penal statute be understandable to a man of "ordinary intelligence" rather than a scientist or judge. If the statute were interpreted literally to include all animals, it would lead to absurd results, criminalizing common activities such as hunting, fishing, or a dog chasing a rabbit. Because the legislature failed to be explicit—despite distinguishing between animals and fowls in other codes—the statute does not provide sufficient notice that cockfighting is a crime. The court emphasized that it cannot expand a vague statute to catch offenders; that is the legislature's duty.

Analysis:

This case is a seminal example of the "void for vagueness" doctrine in criminal law. It highlights the principle of legality: "nullum crimen sine lege" (no crime without law). The court refused to engage in judicial legislation, even though they acknowledged the moral controversy surrounding cockfighting. By strictly construing the penal statute against the state, the decision protects citizens from arbitrary enforcement of ambiguous laws. It forces legislatures to draft specific, clear statutes if they wish to criminalize specific conduct, rather than relying on broad, catch-all terms that could inadvertently ban innocent acts.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lock v. Falkenstine (1963)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"