Untiedt

People v. Untiedt

Good Law
116 Cal. Rptr. 899·1974 Cal. App. LEXIS 1248·42 Cal. App. 3d 550
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 18, 1974Crim. 13114California1,503 words

Opinion

Opinion

Elkington, J.

This appeal has been transferred to our court from the Appellate Department of the Alameda County Superior Court, under the authority of rule 63 of the California Rules of Court.

Defendant June Untiedt had been found guilty by a jury of a violation of Penal Code section 597f in the Fremont-Newark-Union City Municipal Court. Upon her appeal from the judgment thereafter entered, the only question raised was whether the statute was unconstitutionally vague, and therefore void.

Section 597f, as relevant here, provides: “Every owner, driver, or possessor of any animal, who shall permit the same to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot, of any city, city and county, or judicial district, without proper care and attention, shall, on conviction, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. And it shall be the duty of any peace officer, officer of the humane society, or officer of a pound or animal regulation department of a public agency, to take possession of the animal so abandoned or neglected . . . .” (Italics added.)

Defendant contends that the words “without proper care and attention” are “so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.