Opinion ID: 450481
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unconstitutionality of the Statute on its Face

Text: 10 In addition to claiming that the statute was unconstitutional as to them, appellants also challenge the statute as being overbroad on its face. We conclude that we should not reach this issue in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2916, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973) that the overbreadth analysis should be used only as a last resort. We have no reason for assuming that the State of Georgia will continue prosecuting persons who stand in the position as did the petitioners in Monroe and in this case now that they have been decided. 11 The judgment of the trial court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for the issuance of the writ.