Grantham v. State
| Decision Date | 11 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 58438,58438 |
| Citation | 261 S.E.2d 445,151 Ga.App. 707 |
| Parties | GRANTHAM v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Ben B. Mills, Jr., Fitzgerald, for appellant.
Thomas H. Pittman, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. Watry, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Grantham appeals his conviction of using obscene and vulgar language by telephone to a female in violation of Criminal Code § 26-2610(b). We affirm.
1. Although Grantham attempts to raise questions as to the constitutionality of a state statute, a matter seemingly within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Constitution of 1976, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. IV (Code Ann. § 2-3104) ), we will retain jurisdiction. "Once a constitutional question has been finally and conclusively determined by the Supreme Court, in later cases raising the same question, the courts merely apply the holding of the Supreme Court and the appellate jurisdiction for that is in the Court of Appeals." Andrews v. Dept. of Transp., 133 Ga.App. 78, 79(2), 210 S.E.2d 30, 32 (1974); Watts v. Six Flags Over Ga., 140 Ga.App. 106, 107-108(3), 230 S.E.2d 34 (1976).
2. As we held in Watts, Supra, Watts, supra, 140 Ga. 106 at 107(3), 230 S.E.2d at 36. See also D.G.D. v. State, 142 Ga.App. 266, 235 S.E.2d 673 (1977).
In any event the attack must fail since the matter Grantham challenges in his "motion to quash and demurrer" is designated as "Georgia Code Annotated Section 26-2610" and "Code Annotated Section 26-2610." Widemon v. Burson, 224 Ga. 665, 164 S.E.2d 128 (1968); Cox v. Burson, 226 Ga. 13(2), 172 S.E.2d 406 (1970); Cooper v. State, 226 Ga. 722, 177 S.E.2d 228 (1970).
3. Grantham's complaint that there are no standards to be applied in determining just which words would be obscene and vulgar was answered adversely to him in Breaux, 230 Ga. 506(1), 197 S.E.2d 695. As was there said, "(l) anguage is obscene, vulgar or profane when, under the circumstances and manner in which such utterance was made, it would clearly offend a reasonable person's sense of decency." Breaux, 230 Ga. 506, 508, 197 S.E.2d 695, 696, supra.
We hold that the jury could properly find that Grantham's statements over the telephone that "I want to get between your legs," and "I want to get in bed with you" which were made unidentified and unprovoked on two occasions, would clearly offend a reasonable person's sense of decency.
4. The evidence clearly authorized the guilty verdict, and remaining enumerations fail to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Recoba v. State
...v. State, 255 Ga. 407, 411(5), 339 S.E.2d 244 (1986). Accordingly, we will retain jurisdiction. See generally Grantham v. State, 151 Ga.App. 707(1), 261 S.E.2d 445 (1979), aff'd 244 Ga. 775, 262 S.E.2d 777 2. The evidence adduced at trial shows that, while appellant was being lawfully detai......
-
Lamar v. Banks
...to cause a breach of the peace ... shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."10 Among the cases cited by petitioner is Grantham v. State, 151 Ga.App. 707, 261 S.E.2d 445 (1979), in which a defendant was convicted of violating § 26-2610(b) by saying to a woman over the phone: "I want to get between ......
-
Woodward v. Gray
...offend a reasonable person's sense of decency." Breaux v. State, 230 Ga. 506, 508(1), 197 S.E.2d 695 (1973); Grantham v. State, 151 Ga.App. 707, 708(3), 261 S.E.2d 445 (1979), aff'd, 244 Ga. 775, 262 S.E.2d 777 For the use of obscene words to constitute a disturbance of the peace, it must b......
-
GEMC Federal Credit Union v. Shoemake, 58410
... ... He also added defenses of failure to state a claim and that plaintiff had forfeited any right to collect a deficiency on the alleged notes by virtue of plaintiff's failure to follow proper ... ...