State v. Moses

3 Citing cases

  1. Access Indep. Health Servs. v. Wrigley

    2025 N.D. 26 (N.D. 2025)

    A law is not unconstitutionally vague if the challenged language, when measured by common understanding and practice, gives adequate warning of the conduct proscribed and marks boundaries sufficiently distinct for fair administration of the law." State v. Moses, 2022 ND 208, ¶ 17, 982 N.W.2d 321 (cleaned up). The required degree of specificity necessarily depends on the scope of the law and the conduct at issue.

  2. Woolsey v. State

    2024 N.D. 184 (N.D. 2024)

    § 27-20.2-16(1); see also N.D.C.C. § 27-20-33(1) (repealed 2021) (same language); State v. Moses, 2022 ND 208, ¶ 10, 982 N.W.2d 321 (stating that "N.D.C.C. § 27-20-33 provides a general rule that a juvenile adjudication is not a conviction of crime" (quotations omitted)). In Moses, we recognized the firearm prohibition statute expressly created an exception to the general rule, allowing "a juvenile adjudication to be a conviction only for the limited purpose of deciding whether a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm."

  3. State v. Thacker

    2024 Ohio 5835 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)

    It further disarms individuals convicted of any other felony offense for five years following their conviction or sentence. N.D.Cent.Code 62.1-02-01(1)(b); State v. Moses, 2022 ND 208, ¶ 4 (noting that "[a]ny felony conviction will serve as a predicate" for this provision). The statute defines "conviction" to include individuals "subject to juvenile adjudication or proceedings and a determination of a court . . . that the person committed the delinquent act or offense."