Vaughn v. State, 880 So.2d 1178, 1194-96 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003). The mere fact that a statute contains a term that is not specifically defined in the statute or statutory scheme does not automatically render the statute void for vagueness. See, e.g., Scott v. State, 917 So.2d 159 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005) (holding that § 13A-12-200.11, Ala. Code 1975, that part of the Alabama Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act that prohibits the display of genitals, etc., for entertainment purposes, was not void for vagueness, even though the terms "business establishment," "for entertainment purposes," and "allow" were not specifically defined in the Criminal Code); State v. Randall, 669 So.2d 223, 226 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995) (holding that Alabama's stalking law, § 13A-6-90 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, was not void for vagueness, even though the terms "repeatedly" and "series" were not specifically defined in the statute); Musgrove v. State, 519 So.2d 565, 582-83 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 519 So.2d 586 (Ala. 1986) (holding that the kidnapping statute, § 13A-6-43, Ala. Code 1975, was not void for vagueness, even though the term "terrorize" was not specifically defined in the statute); and Farris v. State, 432 So.2d 538, 539-40 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983) (holding that § 13A-7-44, Ala. Code 1975, criminal possession of ex

The facts in this case are not in dispute, and the question before this Court on appeal—whether the circuit court erred when it granted Thomas's motion to dismiss—is purely a legal one. “ ‘ “ ‘[O]n appeal, the ruling on a question of law carries no presumption of correctness, and this Court's review is de novo. ’ Ex parte Graham, 702 So.2d 1215, 1221 (Ala.1997).” Rogers Found. Repair, Inc. v. Powell, 748 So.2d 869, 871 (Ala.1999).' ” Scott v. State, 917 So.2d 159, 169–70 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (quoting Girard v. State, 883 So.2d 717, 719 (Ala.2003) ).Discussion

However, that argument is without merit because “the absence of an express statement in [a statute] as to the requisite mental state does not render that statute unconstitutionally vague.” Scott v. State, 917 So.2d 159, 173 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (plurality opinion). Section 13A–2–4(b), Ala.Code 1975, provides:

However, that argument is without merit because "the absence of an express statement in [a statute] as to the requisite mental state does not render that statute unconstitutionally vague." Scott v. State, 917 So. 2d 159, 173 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) (plurality opinion). Section 13A-2-4(b), Ala. Code 1975, provides: