In re E.B.

E.B. (defendant) was a 15-year-old boy who admitted to committing the unruly act of truancy during the 1977-78 school year. E.B. admitted being truant during his involvement with an informal adjustment in May 1978, and he was placed on probation by a juvenile supervisor. E.B. lived with his mother, but she had a hard time controlling E.B., and he did not obey her. For the 1978-79 school year, E.B. had already missed 18 days of school between September 1978 and the end of January 1979. Six of these absences were unexcused. School officials recognized the developing pattern. Therefore, a petition was filed alleging that E.B. was an unruly child because he had been truant from school habitually and without justification. North Dakota law § 27-20-02(4) stated that an unruly child was one who was truant from school habitually and without justification. E.B.’s lawyer moved for dismissal on the ground that § 27-20-02(4) was too vague. The juvenile supervisor did not grant dismissal and classified E.B. as an unruly child. A district court affirmed, and E.B. appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court. On appeal, E.B. argued, among other things, that the juvenile court’s ruling should be reversed because the terms habitually and without justification were too vague to provide a sufficient standard for courts to apply § 27-20-02(4), in violation of due process.