Court of Appeals of Arizona· 7/8/2004

State v. McDermott

Citations

93 P.3d 532
208 Ariz. 332
429 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 11
2004 Ariz. App. LEXIS 102

How courts have described this case

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

\A statute is not void for vagueness because it fails to explicitly define a term or because it can be interpreted in more than one way.\
to afford due process, statute must give notice of prohibited conduct
“[W]e . . . presume that the legislature does not include statutory ‘provisions which are redundant, . . . [or] superfluous . . . .’” (quoting State v. Moerman, 182 Ariz. 255, 260, 895 P.2d 1018, 1023 (App. 1994))
statute need not define every term to avoid vagueness

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ehrlich, Kessler, Hall

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.