example, this court found that the crime of willful failure to pay child support
"without lawful excuse" was so vague that it rendered the entire statute "void for
vagueness under [the due process protections of] U.S. Const, amend. 14." 102 Wn.2d
242, 248, 683 P.2d 1093 (1984). The due process clause requires criminal statutes
to be sufficiently specific so that (1) "persons of common understanding" have
notice that the activity is unlawful and (2) criminal convictions are not based on
"arbitrary or ad hoc determinations of criminality." Id. at 243-44. We held that the
phrase "without lawful excuse" violated both protections because "potential
10
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Dep't ofLicensing Bus. & Professions Div., No. 95237-0
(Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting)
defendants may violate the statute with the impression that their excuse [(physical,
vocational or economic incapacity, or emotional illness)] is lawful, and only later
find that it was not." Id. at 247. Moreover, the absence of any definition forced
"[jJudges . . . to decide what constitutes a lawful excuse on a case-by-case basis
according to their personal predilections." Id.
Similarly, in State v. Hilt, this court voided a statute criminalizing bail
jumping "without lawful excuse" on vagueness grounds because the phrase "without
lawful excuse" was "nowhere defined and predicting its potential application would
be a guess, at best." 99 Wn.2d 452, 455, 662 P.2d 52(1983).
And in State v. White, this court voided a different statute that criminalized
the refusal to provide "lawfully required" information to a public servant without
"lawful excuse." 97 Wn.2d 92, 100, 640 P.2d 1061 (1982). We held that the phrase