Freeman v. State
302 Ga. 181, 805 S.E.2d 845 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A disorderly conduct statute prohibiting 'tumultuous' acts that place a person in reasonable fear for their safety is not unconstitutionally overbroad if it is narrowly construed to apply only to expressive conduct that constitutes unprotected 'fighting words' or a 'true threat.'
Facts:
- On August 3, 2014, David Justin Freeman attended a service at 12 Stone Church with at least 250 other people.
- During the service, Pastor Jason Berry asked all teachers in the congregation to stand so they could be prayed for.
- Freeman, who was at the back of the church, stood up along with about 50 other people.
- While standing, Freeman raised his middle finger and stared angrily at Pastor Berry.
- Pastor Berry testified that this action caused him to feel afraid for his own safety.
- After the prayer concluded and as people were leaving, Freeman began yelling about sending children to 'evil public schools' to be 'raised by Satan.'
- Pastor Berry followed Freeman to the lobby to speak with him, after which Freeman and his family left the church.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Georgia charged David Justin Freeman with disorderly conduct under OCGA § 16-11-39 (a) (1).
- The case proceeded to a jury trial in the trial court.
- At trial, Freeman's counsel moved for a directed verdict of acquittal, arguing that his actions constituted protected speech, but the trial court denied the motion.
- The jury found Freeman guilty of disorderly conduct.
- The trial court sentenced Freeman to 12 months of probation and a $270 fine.
- Freeman appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Georgia, challenging the constitutionality of the statute.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is Georgia's disorderly conduct statute, OCGA § 16-11-39 (a) (1), which prohibits acting in a 'tumultuous manner' toward another person whereby they are placed in reasonable fear for their safety, unconstitutionally vague and overbroad on its face?
Opinions:
Majority - Melton, Presiding Justice.
No, the statute is not unconstitutional on its face. The court upholds OCGA § 16-11-39 (a) (1) by applying a narrowing construction that limits its scope to unprotected speech. Regarding the vagueness challenge, the court found that the term 'tumultuous' has a commonly understood meaning ('disorderly, turbulent, or uproarious') and provides a person of ordinary intelligence with sufficient notice of the prohibited conduct. To save the statute from being unconstitutionally overbroad, the court held that when the alleged tumultuous conduct is expressive in nature, it is only punishable if it rises to the level of 'fighting words' or a 'true threat,' categories of speech that fall outside First Amendment protection. Applying this narrowed construction to the facts, the court determined that Freeman's act of silently raising his middle finger, without more, did not constitute fighting words or a true threat as a matter of law. Therefore, the pastor's fear was not legally reasonable under the statute, and the evidence was insufficient to support Freeman's conviction.
Analysis:
This decision is significant because it preserves the constitutionality of Georgia's disorderly conduct statute by reading a First Amendment limitation into it. By applying a 'narrowing construction,' the court avoids striking down the law while ensuring it cannot be used to punish constitutionally protected, albeit offensive, expression. This case establishes a clear precedent in Georgia that expressive acts, such as gestures or speech, cannot be prosecuted as 'tumultuous' disorderly conduct unless they meet the high constitutional standards for 'fighting words' or 'true threats.' This raises the evidentiary bar for prosecutors in such cases and provides greater protection for individuals engaging in protest or dissent.
