## Facts

- Scott Mobbs bow hunted in Richmond, Vermont on October 12, 1997, during deer season.
- From about twenty-five yards, Mobbs intentionally shot an animal he believed was a deer.
- As the animal ran off, Mobbs realized he had shot a moose.
- There was no open moose season in Richmond during 1997.
- The landowner found the wounded moose, recorded vehicle license plates from the property, and contacted police.
- Days later, the landowner and a state game warden found the moose dead.
- The warden located Mobbs using vehicle information; Mobbs admitted he mistakenly shot the moose believing it was a deer.
- Mobbs was charged with taking a moose in closed season under 10 V.S.A. App. § 31(f), which restricts taking game animals to specified periods; “taking” includes shooting, and moose is classified as “big game” under related definitions.

## Issues

1. Whether taking a moose in closed season under 10 V.S.A. App. § 31(f) requires proof that the defendant specifically intended to take a moose or knew the animal was a moose.
2. Whether the closed-season provision, read with statutory definitions of “taking” and “big game,” is void for vagueness.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the State did not need to prove Mobbs specifically intended to take a moose or knew the animal was a moose.
- The court rejected the vagueness challenge, concluding the statutory scheme gave adequate notice and enforceable standards.

## Legal Principles

- A closed-season wildlife offense may be satisfied by proof that the defendant intentionally performed the prohibited act (e.g., shooting) and that the act resulted in the taking of the protected species during a closed season, without proof of species-specific intent or knowledge.
- Misidentification of the animal’s species is not a defense when the offense definition does not make knowledge of species an element.
- A statute is not unconstitutionally vague when, read with incorporated definitions, it provides ordinary people fair notice of prohibited conduct and limits enforcement through objective criteria (species taken and season status).

## Conclusion

The court treated taking a moose in closed season as a general-intent regulatory offense: because Mobbs intentionally shot an animal that was in fact a moose when moose season was closed, the State could convict without proving he meant to shoot a moose, and the statutory terms provided constitutionally sufficient notice and enforcement standards.


State v. Mobbs, 740 A.2d 1288 (Vt. 1999)