Supreme Court of New Jersey

State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Betty Norflett, Defendant-Appellant

May 8, 197567 N.J. 268

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and concurrent sentences for performing an abortion without lawful justification and contributing to a minor's delinquency. It held that the abortion statute remained enforceable against a layperson, was not impermissibly vague as applied to defendant's conduct, and that the evidence supported the delinquency conviction. The court also declined to disturb the sentence because the record showed no abuse of discretion.

Holding

  • Enforceability of the abortion statute against a layperson. The abortion statute survived constitutional challenge insofar as it authorized prosecution of a layperson without medical training who performed an abortion without physician supervision or lawful medical justification.
  • Vagueness of the phrase "without lawful justification". The phrase was not impermissibly vague as applied to defendant because she could not reasonably have been unaware that performing an abortion without medical training or a licensed physician's medical judgment was prohibited.
  • Effect of the lower federal court's declaration concerning the statute. The prior lower federal court decision did not prevent defendant's prosecution, and the court declined to follow it because state courts and lower federal courts occupy parallel, not hierarchical, positions on federal constitutional questions and the state court's construction of the statute was constitutionally permissible.
  • Contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The conviction was supported because the statute required only that defendant's willful conduct have a tendency to cause delinquency, not that the minor actually become delinquent, and the evidence permitted the jury to find that tendency.
  • Excessiveness of sentence. The concurrent sentences were proper because the record disclosed no clear abuse of sentencing discretion.

Cited authorities

  • 109 U. Pa. L. Rev. 67
  • 88 Harv. L. Rev. 423

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF