People v. Lynch

Lynch was charged with possession of a gas-ejecting device.1 He was convicted on his plea of guilty to the reduced charge of attempting to carry a gas-ejecting device.

The Court of Appeals, applying the vagueness test outlined in People v Howell,2 accepted Lynch’s argument that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and vacated his conviction, saying:

"Thus, by its failure to sufficiently distinguish between legal (such as a can of hairspray or deodorant) and illegal gas-ejecting devices, the statute does not provide sufficient notice as to what conduct is prohibited. Further, *…