This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

An information charged D with two separate offenses of criminal solicitation of the crime of aggravated robbery. D moved to dismiss the solicitation counts on the ground that the statute is unconstitutional for reasons of vagueness and overbreadth was granted by the court. The criminal solicitation statute provides: 'Criminal Solicitation. (1) Except as to bona fide acts of persons authorized by law to investigate and detect the commission of offenses by others, a person is guilty of criminal solicitation if he commands, induces, entreats, or otherwise attempts to persuade another person to commit a felony, whether as principal or accomplice, with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of that crime, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent.' The district court granted the motion holding that the use of the word bona fide was vague. It also held that the statute did not prohibit all solicitations of all criminal acts, but only solicitations of felonies 'with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of that crime and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent' The court also held that there was no standard in the statute which would enable a person of common intelligence to understand what circumstances are 'strongly corroborative of that intent.' There was no way that a citizen may know in advance what 'circumstances' are 'strongly corroborative of that intent.'

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.