## Facts

- Richard Allen Lock and others were charged in the County Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma with “fighting gamecock.”
- The prosecution relied on Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1682, which made it a misdemeanor to maliciously or for a bet or reward “instigate[] or encourage[] any fight between animals” or encourage an animal to attack, bite, wound, or worry another.
- Before trial, defendants filed an original action in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals seeking a writ of prohibition to stop the county judge from proceeding.
- Defendants argued § 1682 did not clearly cover cockfighting and, if applied to cockfighting, failed to give fair notice because it was not sufficiently definite.

## Issues

1. Whether Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1682 clearly and validly criminalized gamecock fighting.
2. Whether § 1682 was unconstitutionally vague as applied to gamecock fighting because it did not define prohibited conduct with sufficient certainty to provide fair notice and prevent arbitrary enforcement.
3. Whether a writ of prohibition was an appropriate remedy to prevent a criminal trial under an invalid or inapplicable statute.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals granted the writ of prohibition.
- The court held § 1682 did not clearly and constitutionally reach gamecock fighting in a manner sufficient to support prosecution.
- The court restrained the county judge from proceeding to trial on the gamecock-fighting charge under § 1682.

## Legal Principles

- A penal statute must define prohibited conduct with enough definiteness that a person of ordinary understanding can know what is forbidden and conform conduct accordingly; otherwise, it violates due process.
- Criminal statutes are strictly construed; courts will not extend a penal law by implication to cover conduct not plainly included, and material ambiguity is resolved in favor of the accused.
- Prohibition may issue to prevent a trial court from exercising judicial power not authorized by law, including proceeding on a criminal charge under a statute that is unconstitutional or does not clearly apply to the charged conduct.

## Conclusion

Because the animal-fighting statute did not provide sufficiently clear notice that gamecock fighting was criminalized and could not be applied to that conduct without impermissible expansion of a penal law, the court halted the prosecution by issuing a writ of prohibition barring the county court from trying the defendants under § 1682.


Lock v. Falkenstine, 380 P.2d 278 (Okla. Crim. App. 1963)