Legal Opinion
State v. Christensen
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided May 9, 1989No. C1-88-2065PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FOLEY, Judge.
The state appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of criminal charges due to its finding that the charging statute is unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
Respondent Ann Brooke Christensen was charged with the misdemeanor offense of possessing drug paraphernalia for delivery in violation of Minn.Stat. § 152.093 (1986), which provides:
It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to deliver drug paraphernalia or knowingly or intentionally to possess or manufacture drug paraphernalia for delivery. Any violation of this…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Screws v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Smith v. GoguenSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. NetlandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
- State v. WillenbringCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
- City of St. Paul v. Various Items of Drug ParaphernaliaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
- State v. NetlandCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
- State v. NetlandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009