Ex Parte Sarah Janie Hicks. (in Re Sarah Janie Hicks v. State of Alabama)

Summary

The court affirmed Hicks's conviction for chemical endangerment, holding that the statutory term "child" includes unborn children and therefore covers a pregnant woman's exposure of her unborn child to cocaine. It rejected Hicks's rule-of-lenity and statutory-context arguments, declined to resolve her public-policy objections, and held that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague because it provided fair notice and did not invite arbitrary enforcement. Justice Murdock, dissenting, would have found due-process problems with applying the criminal statute; Justices Parker, Moore, and Shaw separately concurred, with Parker and Moore advancing broader views concerning unborn children's rights and Shaw adhering to the statutory interpretation stated in the controlling opinion.