Void for Vagueness €28 Bondurant next contends that section 16-8-107(8)(b), and relevant portions of see-tions 16-8-103.6 and 16-8-106, are unconstitutionally vague, both facially and as applied to him, because the statutory scheme fails to apprise defendants of what mental conditions trigger its application and to what extent they must cooperate in compulsory examinations to comply therewith,. We disagree on this issue of first impression. $29 "A statute that forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application violates due process protections afforded by the United States and Colorado Constitutions." Watso v. Colorado Dep't of Soc. Services, 841 P.2d 299, 309 (Colo.1992) (<HOLDING>). {$30 Because statutes generally "contain
holding that attorney disciplinary rule was unconstitutionally vague as applied holding that essentially equivalent is unconstitutionally vague holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague holding that the incorporation of community standards by itself did not make the child online protection act unconstitutionally overbroad holding that certain statutory child protection standards governing administrative determinations were not unconstitutionally vague