United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971)

United States v. Vuitch

No. 84

Argued January 12, 1971
Decided April 21, 1971
402 U.S. 62

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appellee physician’s indictments for producing and attempting to produce abortions in violation of D.C.Code § 22-201 was dismissed by the District Court on the ground of unconstitutional vagueness. That court held that the word "health" was overly vague, and, relying on Williams v. United States, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 147, 138 F.2d 81, held that, once an abortion is proved, the burden is on the doctor to persuade the jury that it was necessary to preserve the mother’s life or health. The Government appealed to this Court under the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3731.

Held:

1. Although the abortion statute applies only to the District of Columbia, this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal under § 3731, which provides for direct appeals from district court judgments

in all criminal cases . . . dismissing any indictment where such decision is based upon the invalidity . . . of the statute upon which the indictment . . . is founded.

Once the appeal is properly here, this Court should not refuse to consider it because it might have been taken to the Court of Appeals. Pp. 64-67.

2. The statute is not unconstitutionally vague. Pp. 67-73.

(a) Under § 22-201 the burden is on the prosecution to plead and prove that an abortion was not "necessary for the preservation of the mother’s life or health." Pp. 69-71.

(b) The word "health" in the statute, in accord with general usage and modern understanding, and a recent interpretation of § 22-201 by the federal courts, includes psychological as well as physical wellbeing, and as thus construed is not overly vague. Pp. 71-72.

305 F.Supp. 1032, reversed and remanded.

BLACK, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in Part I of which BURGER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, STEWART, and WHITE, JJ., joined, and in Part II of which BURGER, C.J., and HARLAN, WHITE, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 73. DOUGLAS, J., filed an opinion dissenting in part, post, p. 74. HARLAN, J., filed an opinion dissenting as to jurisdiction, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 81. STEWART, J., filed an opinion dissenting in part, post, p. 96. BLACKMUN, J., filed a separate opinion, post, p. 97.