A challenge to the constitutionality of a statute presents a question of law, which we review for correctness, according no deference to the trial court's ruling. Because we conclude the telephone harassment statute is unconstitutionally overbroad, we need not reach Whatcott's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence or his vagueness argument. We first consider Whatcott's overbreadth challenge. We need consider his vagueness challenge only if we conclude the statute is not unconstitutionally overbroad. As an overarching principle, we will construe a statute as constitutional whenever possible.
Telephone harassment is a class B misdemeanor.
Utah Code Ann. Presumably, the Legislature intended to prohibit threatening and menacing calls, and calls that would provoke a breach of the peace. This is certainly within the Legislature's power, and does not offend the First Amendment. Read thus, the statute would prohibit a potentially huge universe of otherwise legitimate telephone calls. For example, unwanted telephone solicitations made to a private home during the dinner hour would be prohibited, as those calls surely risk annoying, offending, or harassing the recipients.