acted with the required mental state presents a question of fact which must be submitted to the fact-finder. See State v. Workman, 852 P.2d 981, 987 (Utah 1993). Therefore, dismissal on this basis would also be improper. C. Vagueness ¶ 20 Defendants further contend that dismissal is proper because section 78-3a-801(l)(a)(ii) is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to give adequate notice of the prohibited conduct. ¶ 21 When reviewing the constitutionality of a statute, we must presume that the statute is constitutional. See Tritt, 463 P.2d at 808. A statute “will not be declared unconstitutional unless found to be so beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.; see also Salt Lake City v. Lopez, 935 P.2d 1259, 1265 (Utah Ct.App.1997); State v. McKinley, 53 N.M. 106, 202 P.2d 964, 966 (1949) (<HOLDING>). Those challenging the constitutionality of a
holding that trial court has no duty to establish waiver on record holding that ijnmates have the right to be provided with food sufficient to sustain them in good health that satisfies the dietary laws of their religion holding the court has a duty to correct erroneous past decisions holding court has duty to sustain and uphold statutes rather than to ignore and defeat them holding that the court has no duty to search for triable issues