Muse v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
In this case, appellant Mark S. Muse was convicted after a bench trial on stipulated facts of one count of solicitation for purposes of prostitution. D.C.Code § 22-2701 (1986 Supp.). On appeal, appellant asserts that insufficient evidence supported his conviction, and that the definition of prostitution in D.C.Code § 22-2701.1(1) renders the statute under which he was convicted unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. We reject these contentions and affirm.
I
The trial in this case was held on stipulated facts, which consisted exclusively of the factual narrative contained in Police Report 163…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Ford v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. MarcalusCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2010
- Nche v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- Moten v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
- State v. JING HUA XIAOHawaii Supreme Court · 2010
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.