People v. Solis CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Section 288.3 Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague Appellant contends that section 288.3 is unconstitutionally vague because it lacks readily understood standards. The argument lacks merit. ‘“The constitutional interest implicated in questions of statutory vagueness is that no person be deprived of ‘life, liberty, or property without due process of law,’ as assured by both the federal Constitution (U.S. Const., Amends. V, XIV) and the California Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 7). Under both Constitutions, due process of law in this context requires two elements: a criminal statute must “‘be definite enough to

2 provide (1) a standard of conduct for those whose activities are proscribed and (2) a standard for police enforcement and for ascertainment of guilt.’” [Citations.]”’ (People v. Morgan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 593, 605 (Morgan), quoting Williams v. Garcetti (1993) 5 Cal.4th 561, 567.) Section 288.3 provides in relevant part:

(a) Every person who contacts or communicates with a minor, or attempts to contact or communicate with a minor, who knows or reasonably should know that the person is a minor, with intent to commit an offense specified in Section 207, 209,…