Appeal from Ionia, Leo B. Bebeau, J.
Danhof, P. J., and D. E. Holbrook and Allen, JJ.
1. Constitutional Law -- Due Process -- Statutes -- Vagueness.
A statute which forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.
2. -- Prison Inmates -- Weapons -- Implements -- Constitutional Law -- Statutes.
A statute which proscribes the unauthorized possession by a prison inmate of a weapon or other implement which may be used to inflict injury is constitutional on its face and as applied to a defendant who was in possession of a draftsman's compass which was bent, sharpened on one end, and unfit for normal use (MCLA 800.283; MSA 28.1623).
3. Constitutional Law -- Statutes -- Unconstitutional Applications -- Standing to Assert.
One to whom application of a statute is constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the grounds that impliedly it might also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Allen
Michael M. Herron, a prison inmate, was convicted of unauthorized possession of an implement by a convict which may be used to injure another. Defendant appeals.
A jury convicted defendant, a prison inmate, of unauthorized possession of an implement by a convict which may be used to injure another. MCLA 800.283; MSA 28.1623. He appeals raising three assignments of error, one of which merits Discussion.
Defendant asserts he was convicted under an unconstitutionally vague law. The people unsurprisingly maintain a contrary view. That part of the statute under attack reads:
"A convict without authorization, shall not have on his person or under his control or in his possession any weapon or other implement which may be used to injure any convict or other person, or to assist any convict ...