People v. Guy
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
We agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion reached in Judge Cavanagh’s dissenting opinion that MCL 750.224; MSA 28.421 is *612unconstitutionally vague. We also agree that wherever possible an act should be construed to avoid unconstitutionality, if necessary severing unenforceable provisions.
After much deliberation, however, we cannot see how the statutory provision in question can be saved in this case. For example, if a person buys a can of hairspray or deodorant, we do not believe that the question of whether or not that person is violating the statute should be left to the whim or caprice of…
2Cited by7 opinions
- People v. LynchMichigan Supreme Court · 1981
- People v. StinsonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1979
- People v. GrenkeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
- People v. BennettMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
- People v. GuyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.