stating “the criminality of the conduct is measured in the [harassment] statute not by the unpredictable effect upon third persons, but by the mental state of the actor”
How later courts described this case
- stating “the criminality of the conduct is measured in the [harassment] statute not by the unpredictable effect upon third persons, but by the mental state of the actor”
- upholding a harassment statute against an overbreadth challenge even though its application was not limited to obscenities or fighting words when the defendant made harassing telephone calls to the victim
- limiting Mo.Rev.Stat. § 565.090.-1(2) (1978) to language directed to a specific individual in the privacy of his or her own home
- upholding, as not unconstitutionally vague, statute proscribing use of “coarse language offensive to one of average sensibility”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BARDGETT, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent as to the holding reference instructing the jury regarding the punishment of a fine.
In my opinion the jury must be instructed as to the fine. It may well be that the matters required to be considered in arriving at the amount of the fine are such that the jury could not be given the information without prejudicing the case. In my opinion the jury should be instructed that it may declare by its verdict that the punishment shall be a fine and not imprisonment. This would, at least, let the jury know of the fine option and let it decide what type of punishment is appropriate. In short, the jury should have the option of rejecting imprisonment in favor of a fine.