## Facts

- John Witham lived part-time with his girlfriend in Augusta, Maine; she owned a pregnant cat, and they argued about keeping it in the apartment.
- During an argument on February 26, 2004, Witham sat in his truck with the cat in a carrier and told his girlfriend it was “either me or your cat.”
- Witham held the carrier out the window, dropped it, began to drive away, and maneuvered his vehicle in a way that ran over the carrier, killing the cat.
- A neighbor testified that Witham was “howling and laughing” as he drove away.
- Witham was charged with aggravated cruelty to animals for causing the death of an animal in a manner manifesting a depraved indifference to animal life or suffering.

## Issues

1. Whether Maine’s aggravated cruelty to animals statute, 17 M.R.S.A. § 1031(1‑B), is unconstitutionally void for vagueness because it uses the phrase “in a manner manifesting a depraved indifference to animal life or suffering.”

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that § 1031(1‑B) is not void for vagueness under the federal or state due process guarantees.
- The court concluded that the “depraved indifference” language supplies an intelligible standard and does not authorize arbitrary enforcement.
- The court determined that, as applied, Witham’s conduct fell squarely within the statute’s plainly prohibited conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires criminal statutes to provide reasonable notice of prohibited conduct and sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
- A vagueness challenge is generally assessed in light of the defendant’s actual conduct; a defendant whose conduct is clearly proscribed cannot rely on hypothetical borderline applications.
- “Depraved indifference” need not be separately defined if its meaning is reasonably understood in context and through established usage in analogous criminal statutes; it refers to morally debased conduct posing a high degree of risk and reflecting a total lack of concern for life or suffering.
- Statutory elements that combine a specified harm (e.g., death, extreme pain, or torture) with an objective requirement that the manner of conduct “manifest” depraved indifference provide adequate guidance for enforcement and adjudication.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Witham’s aggravated cruelty to animals conviction, ruling that the statute’s “depraved indifference to animal life or suffering” standard gives adequate notice and enforcement guidance and clearly covered Witham’s conduct in killing the cat with his vehicle.


State v. Witham, 876 A.2d 40 (Me. 2005)