People v. Maness
Illinois Supreme Court
191 Ill. 2d 478, 247 Ill. Dec. 490, 732 N.E.2d 545 (2000)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Lynlee Otten, a 13-year-old girl, dated and engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with Leonard Owens, a 17-year-old boy. Otten told her mother, Kathy Maness (defendant), about her sexual relationship with Owens. Maness confronted both Otten and Owens and expressed her disapproval of their sexual relationship. However, unable to stop Otten and Owens from engaging in sexual intercourse, Maness obtained birth control for Otten and allowed Owens to sleep over at Maness’s house with Otten. Maness believed Otten was safer engaging in sexual intercourse with Owens in Maness’s home rather than somewhere else outside of Maness’s control. Owens was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, criminal sexual abuse of a minor. The State of Illinois (plaintiff) charged Maness for permitting the sexual abuse of a child, arguing that Maness failed to take reasonable steps to prevent Owens from sexually abusing Otten. Maness moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that Illinois’s criminal statute was unconstitutionally vague because it did not define what reasonable steps a parent must take to prevent the sexual abuse of a minor child. After a hearing, the circuit court dismissed the charge against Maness, holding that the criminal statute was unconstitutionally vague. Illinois appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bilandic, J.)
Dissent (Harrison, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
