Defendant was convicted in the District Court of operating a club without an entertainment-establishment license. Defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that:
- License ordinance constituted a permissible prior restraint on the time, place, and manner of expression, and thus ordinance did not infringe upon defendant’s free expression under the First Amendment;
- License ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague, either on its face or as applied;
- License ordinance was not an unconstitutionally overbroad infringement on First Amendment protected expression;
- Defendant lacked standing to contest ordinance’s inspection requirement;
- Sufficient evidence supported finding that night club was open to the public;
- Sufficient evidence supported finding that person operating sound equipment at night club was a disc jockey (DJ);
- Prosecutor’s comments in closing argument were within permissible scope of argument, thus, did not constitute prosecutorial-error;
- Prosecutor’s comments in rebuttal argument were within permissible scope of argument, thus, did not constitute prosecutorial-error; and
- Trial court’s response to jury’s mid-deliberation question was not an abuse of discretion.