• Advertisement

Fall turkey hunters

Anything you want to talk about.

Fall turkey hunters

Postby Eddie Maxwell » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:23 pm

I've got a question for you. What is the definition of the "affected area" of bait when you're turkey hunting or hunting any other protected species of wildlife other than deer or hogs?

Let's say you're sharing a lease with deer and hog hunters who have paid the bribe to be allowed to commit the crime of hunting with the aid of bait without being arrested for it. They've put their bait who knows where and you want to hunt turkeys. Is the law clear enough for hunters of common knowledge to answer that question precisely, or is it a conundrum to be sorted out in court?

The commissioner didn't think it was clear at all as it applies to only deer and hogs, so the he violated his oath of office and exercised powers of the legislature to try to clear the vagueness up in that regard. He passed the "area definition" rule and allowed the vagueness to remain for all the other numerous species of protected wildlife.

"As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 [357], 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) (citations omitted). A statute challenged for vagueness must therefore be scrutinized to determine whether it provides both fair notice to the public that certain conduct is proscribed and minimal guidelines to aid officials in the enforcement of that proscription. See Kolender, supra; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972).

If the statute `either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application,' it is void for vagueness. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926)."
McCorkle v. State, 446 So.2d 684, 685 (Ala. Crim.App.1983). See also State v. Gooden, 570 So.2d 865 (Ala.Crim.App.1990)

Timmons v. City of Montgomery, 641 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.Crim.App.1993)

"It is also settled law that 'In enacting a criminal statute, there is an obligation on the State to so frame it that those who are to administer it and those to whom it is to be administered may know what standard of conduct is intended to be required and legislation may run afoul of the due process clause because of a failure to set up any sufficient guidance to those who would be law-abiding, or to advise a defendant of the nature and cause of an accusation he is called on to answer, or to guide the courts in the law's enforcement.' . . . "And a person is not required to speculate as to the meaning of a statute at the peril of his freedom. Lanzetta v. State of New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 59 S.Ct. 618,83 L.Ed. 888 [1939]." Bolin v. State, 266 Ala. 256, 260, 96 So.2d 582, 585-86 (1957). There is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that "where there is nothing to indicate to the contrary, words in a statute will be give the meaning which is generally accepted in popular, everyday usage." Holloway v. State, 262 Ala. 437, 440, 79 So.2d 40, 42 (1955). Even the application of that principle results in confusion in this particular case because of the testimony that the river is considered to consist of fresh water on some occasions and salt water on others. This unconstitutional infirmity could have been precluded by the adoption of a regulation by the Department of Conservation in accordance with the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act specifically defining which waters will be considered fresh water and which will be considered salt water.

CLOPTON v. STATEv601 So.2d 1087, 1091 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)

And then you have the use of salt still prohibited by the words of the statute but allowed by the commissioner because they say the legislature meant to take the word "salt" out when another statute was amended many years ago.

??? Did they intend to take it out but left it in the statute again after I brought it to their attention while they were considering the current amendments? I reckon we'll just have to wait and see, won't we?
Last edited by Eddie Maxwell on Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eddie Maxwell
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:36 am

Re: Fall turkey hunters

Postby Eddie Maxwell » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:50 pm

Thanks to Archie Phillips (RIP), the state now has to prove you had intent to commit the crime of hunting with the aid of bait...

In Phillips v. State, 771 So.2d 1061 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that hunting over a baited field, a violation of § 9-11-244, Ala.Code 1975, is a strict-liability offense with no requirement of a culpable mental state... We reversed that court's judgment in Ex parte Phillips, 771 So.2d 1066 (Ala.2000), holding that a culpable mental state is an element of hunting over a baited field in the absence of an express statement in the statute to the contrary. See § 13A-2-4(b), Ala.Code 1975 ("A statute defining a crime, unless clearly indicating a legislative intent to impose strict liability, states a crime of mental culpability.").

Ex parte WF, 214 So. 3d 1153 - Ala: Supreme Court 2015

In recent years, I've learned to read case law in preparation for hunting. I used to consider myself a partner with the DCNR in the cause of conservation. That ended when governors started appointing liberals to make money-grubbing hunting rules and liberals in the Alabama legislature backed them up.

I'll save my DCNR gun control rant for another day. Hang on to your rights, guys. It's not just Washington D.C. you have to watch for the liberals these days. We've got plenty of them right here at home.
Eddie Maxwell
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:36 am

Re: Fall turkey hunters

Postby Tru-Talker » Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:50 pm

That's very interesting.... Guess it will come up firs9time someone gets ticketed for it ....
Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves...

User avatar
New Sheriff In Town...Bitches
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:40 am
Location: Everywhere you're not.......

Return to General Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests