## Facts

- Mark Allen Burnsworth was charged with two counts of unlawful manufacture of marijuana and two counts of possession with intent to deliver, based on marijuana plants seized at (1) his residence and (2) a nearby fenced area.
- Police recovered sixteen live marijuana plants at Burnsworth’s residence, some in five-gallon pails and some planted in the ground.
- Police recovered sixty-one marijuana plants from a nearby fenced-in area.
- The Commonwealth sought mandatory minimum sentencing under 18 Pa. C.S. § 7508(a)(1)(i)–(iii), which increases minimum sentences based on the number of “live” marijuana “plants.”
- Burnsworth pled guilty after notice of the Commonwealth’s intent to seek the mandatory minimums, while expressly reserving the right to contest application of the mandatory minimum based on the number of plants.
- At sentencing, Burnsworth presented expert testimony that multiple stems may arise from a single root system and could be considered one plant from a biological standpoint.
- The trial court concluded that, as applied to “live plants,” the term “plant” in § 7508 was unconstitutionally vague because reasonable people could disagree about how to count plants.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 Pa. C.S. § 7508(a)(1)(i)–(iii) is unconstitutionally vague because it does not define “plant” for counting “live” marijuana plants used to set mandatory minimum sentences.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the judgment of sentence.
- The Court held that § 7508(a)(1)(i)–(iii) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to “live” marijuana plants.
- The Court remanded for resentencing with application of the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions.

## Legal Principles

- A statute is void for vagueness if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited or is so unclear that people must guess at its meaning and application.
- Statutory terms are construed according to their common and approved usage unless the legislature indicates a technical meaning.
- The existence of technical or scientific disagreement about a term does not, by itself, make a statute vague when the term has an ordinary meaning understandable to laypersons.
- Quantity-based mandatory minimum provisions are constitutionally sound when the triggering terms provide workable standards for enforcement and sentencing.

## Conclusion

The court held that “plant,” as used in § 7508’s mandatory minimum scheme for “live” marijuana plants, carries a sufficiently definite ordinary meaning to give fair notice and guide sentencing, so expert debates about root systems do not render the statute void for vagueness.


Commonwealth v. Burnsworth, 543 Pa. 18 (Pa. 1995)