## Facts

- Everett Fred Allen owned several horses.
- Between January 19 and April 7, 1979, authorities investigated and found eight of Allen’s horses in severely emaciated condition.
- The prosecution charged Allen with cruelty to animals by neglect under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-202, using the definition of “neglect” in § 18-9-201.
- Allen moved to dismiss, asserting the neglect provisions were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
- The county court dismissed the charge, holding the statute unconstitutional for vagueness and overbreadth.
- On review, the district court affirmed dismissal on vagueness but ruled Allen lacked standing to raise overbreadth.
- The prosecution appealed the vagueness ruling; Allen cross-appealed the standing ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory definition of “neglect” in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-201, as used in the cruelty-to-animals statute, is unconstitutionally vague under due process.
2. Whether Allen had standing to challenge the statute as unconstitutionally overbroad based on hypothetical applications.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the district court’s vagueness ruling and held the “neglect” definition was not unconstitutionally vague.
- The Court affirmed the district court’s determination that Allen lacked standing to assert an overbreadth challenge.
- The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on the charge.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal statute is void for vagueness if it is so unclear that persons of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.
- Due process does not require “mathematical exactitude” in drafting; general terms are permissible if the statute gives fair warning and workable standards of conduct.
- Defining animal “neglect” as failure to provide food, water, protection from the elements, opportunity for exercise, or other care “normal, usual, and proper” for an animal’s health and well-being provides sufficient notice when read in context and according to common usage.
- Overbreadth standing is generally limited outside the First Amendment context; a defendant whose alleged conduct falls within the statute’s core prohibitions cannot challenge the statute based solely on speculative or hypothetical applications to others.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court held that Colorado’s animal-neglect definition supplies adequate notice and enforceable standards, rejected the vagueness challenge, and ruled that a defendant charged with conduct plainly covered by the statute lacks standing to assert overbreadth based on hypothetical scenarios; the case was remanded for prosecution to proceed.


People v. Allen, 657 P.2d 447 (Colo. 1983)