By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law
2001 Case Summaries 2000 Case Summaries 1999 Case Summaries
Vagueness challenge to disruption of
classes statute was not preserved for appeal [In re E.S.] (01-1-02)
On December 7, 2000, the First District Court of Appeals held that a
juvenile adjudicated CINS for disruption of class did not preserve by trial
objection the claim that the statute was void for vagueness.
¶ 01-1-02. In the Matter of E.S., Jr., UNPUBLISHED, No. 01-99-01096-CV, 2000 WL
1790267, 2000 Tex.App.Lexis ___ (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 12/7/00)[Texas
Juvenile Law (5th Edition 2000)].
A jury, sitting in a juvenile court, determined that appellant engaged in
conduct indicating a need for supervision. The court placed appellant on
community supervision for a period of six months. We affirm.
In a sole point of error, appellant claims section 37.124(c)(1)(A) of the Texas
Education Code is constitutionally void for vagueness because the statute
"lacks the requisite determinate guide for law enforcement."
Tex.Educ.Code Ann. § 37.124(c)(1)(A) (Vernon 1996).
To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must have presented to the
trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds
for the ruling desired. Tex.R.App.P. 33.1. Because appellant did not make a
specific, timely objection at trial to the vagueness of the statute, the point
of error has not been preserved for review. See Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490,
496 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (holding point of error not preserved for review when
record showed appellant failed to specifically object at trial that statute was
unconstitutionally vague); McGowan v. State, 938 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.App.--Houston
[14th Dist.] 1996), aff'd sub nom. on other grounds, Weightman v. State, 975
S.W.2d 621 Tex.Crim.App.1998) (holding no preservation of error when appellant
does not make specific, timely objection at trial to the constitutionality of
statute).
We overrule appellant's point of error.
We affirm the judgment.
[Editor’s Comment: The statute that was challenged on vagueness grounds
makes a Class C misdemeanor of disruption of classes. Disruption of classes
occurs “if the person, on school property or on public property within 500
feet of school property, alone or in concert with others, intentionally disrupts
the conduct of classes or other school activities.” There are four
definitions, really examples, of disruption set out in the statute. The
particular one challenged here is “emitting noise of an intensity that
prevents or hinders classroom instruction.”]