## Facts

- In 2001, after an altercation with Denise Howard, Darren Johnson hit Howard with his car.
- Howard was thrown onto the car, and Johnson drove about 15 feet before Howard fell off.
- Johnson then drove away from the scene.
- When police arrived, Howard identified Johnson as her boyfriend.
- The State charged Johnson with aggravated battery and aggravated domestic battery; the aggravated domestic battery charge required proof that the victim was in a “dating relationship” with the defendant.
- At trial, Johnson testified that Howard was his girlfriend, that they had been together for about one year, and that they planned to get married.
- Johnson also testified that Howard visited him in jail while he awaited trial and that he wrote “love letters” to her.
- Howard testified about the relationship and largely confirmed Johnson’s description of it.
- The jury found Johnson guilty of both aggravated battery and aggravated domestic battery; the aggravated battery conviction was merged into the aggravated domestic battery conviction for judgment and sentencing.
- On appeal, Johnson argued the aggravated domestic battery statute was unconstitutional because the phrase “dating relationship” was unconstitutionally vague, pointing to alleged uncertainty shown by the trial court’s discussion of his letters.

## Issues

1. Whether the aggravated domestic battery statute is unconstitutionally vague because it uses the term “dating relationship,” either on its face or as applied to Johnson’s relationship with Howard.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed Johnson’s aggravated domestic battery conviction.
- The court rejected Johnson’s vagueness challenge, concluding that “dating relationship,” given its common meaning, provided adequate notice and was capable of being applied without arbitrary enforcement.
- The court held that, because the statute regulates battery and does not involve First Amendment activity, the vagueness inquiry focused on Johnson’s conduct and circumstances rather than hypothetical borderline situations.
- The court concluded that the evidence showed Johnson and Howard were in a dating relationship under any ordinary understanding of the term, based on their year-long romantic relationship, plans to marry, jail visits, and letters.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal statute is void for vagueness if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited or if it lacks sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
- When a statute does not implicate First Amendment rights, a vagueness claim is generally evaluated as applied to the defendant’s conduct, not based on hypothetical applications.
- When the legislature does not define a statutory term, courts may apply the word’s ordinary and commonly understood meaning.
- A defendant whose conduct clearly falls within the statute’s ordinary meaning cannot invalidate the statute by pointing to imagined marginal cases.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Johnson’s aggravated domestic battery conviction because the statutory term “dating relationship,” though not expressly defined, had a commonly understood meaning that gave adequate notice and workable application standards, and the trial evidence showed that Johnson and Howard’s romantic, ongoing relationship fit within that meaning.


People v. Johnson, 793 N.E.2d 774 (2003)