Commonwealth v. Jasmin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “other authority” in statute similar to § 13-3415.E “includes a jury and that the jury, and not the judge, [is] to determine whether an item is drug paraphernalia”
• challenge to vagueness statute as applied “need not be raised until the Commonwealth has presented its evidence”
• where defense is void as applied, factual determination is required and can only be made during trial
• “It may be that, pursuant to rule 13[c], an argument based on the facial invalidity of a criminal statute should be presented by a pretrial motion”
• “a challenge to ... a statute as applied might properly be raised before trial, but it need not be raised until the Commonwealth has presented its evidence showing the circumstances in which the statute would be applied to a defendant”
• “A law is unconstitutionally vague and denies due process of law if it fails to provide a reasonable opportunity for a person of ordinary intelligence to know what is prohibited or if it does not provide explicit standards for those who apply it”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).