Summary
rejecting vagueness challenge to telephone harassment statute requiring “intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass” because “[t]he point is that the defendant telephones intending to harass and the defendant certainly knows if he is doing that[]”
Summary of this case from Vinson v. ClarkOpinion
34688.
SUBMITTED MARCH 9, 1979.
DECIDED MAY 2, 1979.
Rape, etc.; constitutional question. Richmond Superior Court. Before Judge Fulcher.
Richard L. Powell, for appellant.
Richard E. Allen, District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, William B. Hill, Jr., Staff Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
The only basis asserted for jurisdiction in this court is a constitutional attack upon Code Ann. § 38-202.1 that first was raised not during the trial of the case but in the motion for new trial. The constitutional issue is not presented for our decision and, accordingly, the case is transferred to the Court of Appeals. Thrall v. State, 226 Ga. 308 ( 174 S.E.2d 925) (1970).
Transferred to the Court of Appeals. All the Justices concur.