People v. Holt

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the defendant’s act of skating at a public ice rink was not constitutionally protected because the basis of his conviction was surveilling the victim during her reserved skating times with the intent to embarrass and annoy her
• “[v]agueness claims against statutes that do not involve first amendment rights must be reviewed in the context of the specific case facts”
• it is only when such statute is incapable of any valid application that it is unconstitutionally vague
• it is only when such statute is incapable of any valid application that it is unconstitutionally vague
• \[v]agueness claims against statutes that do not involve first amendment rights must be reviewed in the context of the specific case facts\
• where statute prohibits conduct knowingly done to accomplish that which is prohibited, accused cannot claim he suffered from lack of warning or knowledge that his conduct violated the law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).