Satterfield v. State, S90A1038
| Decision Date | 27 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. S90A1038,S90A1038 |
| Citation | 260 Ga. 427,395 S.E.2d 816 |
| Parties | SATTERFIELD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Alan Mullinax, Stone Mountain, for Satterfield.
Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Sol., David M. Fuller, and William F. Bryant, Asst. Solicitors, Lawrenceville, for the State.
The state filed an accusation against Darrell G. Satterfield, alleging that he had engaged in indecent and disorderly conduct in violation of OCGA § 16-11-39(3), "by massaging his groin with both hands and gyrating his hips in a sexual manner in the presence of [a police] investigator" in a public place. Satterfield pled nolo contendere to the charge, but made a constitutional challenge to OCGA § 16-11-39(3), alleging it is too vague to apprise men of common intelligence as to what acts are prohibited under it. The trial court denied Satterfield's due process challenge, but granted him the right to appeal its decision.
OCGA § 16-11-39(3) makes it a misdemeanor to engage "in indecent or disorderly conduct in the presence of another in any public place."
In Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 491, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1312, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), the United States Supreme Court held that to withstand a vagueness challenge, "all that is required is that the language 'conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.' " However, the Court has more recently noted that with regard to a vagueness challenge, there is "greater tolerance of enactments with civil rather than criminal penalties because the consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less severe." Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1193, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982).
Because OCGA § 16-11-39(3) fails to define in any manner what is meant by indecent or disorderly conduct, it does not provide fair warning to persons of ordinary intelligence as to what it prohibits so that they may act accordingly. We therefore hold that the statute is too vague to justify the imposition of criminal punishment for its violation. 1 Griffin v. Smith, 184 Ga. 871, 193 S.E. 777 (1937). We conclude further that OCGA § 16-11-39(3) may not be upheld because it
impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory applications.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Price v. State
...boisterous language", Gardner v. Ceci (1970) E.D.Wis., 312 F.Supp. 516, 518; and "indecent or disorderly conduct", Satterfield v. State (1990) 260 Ga. 427, 395 S.E.2d 816, 817. In addition, the phrases "abusive or obscene language", "profane, vulgar or indecent language", and "profanely cur......
-
Smallwood v. State
...And in this case, it was stipulated that Smallwood both entered an automobile and committed a theft therein. Cf. Satterfield v. State , 260 Ga. 427, 428, 395 S.E.2d 816 (1990) (statute criminalizing indecent and disorderly conduct was unconstitutionally vague because it impermissibly delega......
-
Thelen v. State
...rather than criminal penalties because the consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less severe.' [Cit.]" Satterfield v. State, 260 Ga. 427-428, 395 S.E.2d 816 (1990). See also Bullock v. City of Dallas, 248 Ga. 164, 166(2), 281 S.E.2d 613 (1981). Due process requires that criminal ord......
-
Johnson v. Athens-Clarke County, S00A0134.
...the circumstances of this case, that a person in Johnson's situation would know whether his conduct was criminal. In Satterfield v. State, 260 Ga. 427, 395 S.E.2d 816 (1990), Satterfield was convicted of indecent or disorderly conduct (OCGA § 16-11-39(3)) based on an accusation that he viol......
-
Criminal Law - Franklin J. Hogue and Laura D. Hogue
...Ga., Mun. Ordinance Sec. 3-5-23). 21. Id. at 386, 529 S.E.2d at 616. 22. Id. at 387, 529 S.E.2d at 616 (quoting Satterfield v. State, 260 Ga. 427, 428, 395 S.E.2d 816, 817 (1990)). 23. Id. at 388, 529 S.E.2d at 617 (quoting City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 64 (1999)). 24. 272 Ga. 81......