Opinion ID: 1773004
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: overbreadth challenge to a criminal statute

Text: A statute may be challenged as overbroad when it reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. at 494, 102 S.Ct. 1186. A statute may be invalid on its face if it inhibits the exercise of First Amendment rights and if the impermissible applications of the law are substantial when `judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.' Morales, 527 U.S. at 55, 119 S.Ct. 1849 (quoting Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612-15, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973)). To maintain an overbreadth challenge, Burkhart must first show that the statute challenged involves constitutionally protected conduct. See Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494, 102 S.Ct. 1186. If the statute reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, a defendant must then demonstrate from the text of the law and actual fact that there are a substantial number of instances where the law cannot be applied constitutionally. Lyons, 802 S.W.2d at 593. Gambling or possessing a gambling device is not constitutionally protected conduct. The statutes, therefore, do not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. Burkhart alleges, however, that Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-17-501 and 39-17-505 violate freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 19 of the Tennessee Constitution. She asserts that the statutes prohibit the right to publish newsworthy information such as lottery numbers from adjacent states. Based upon the record, no evidence reveals that newspaper publishers or owners have been prohibited by Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-505 from publishing this information. Burkhart further does not allege that arrests have been made under Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-17-501 and 39-17-505 for such newspaper publications. Even if we were to find that Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17-501 and 39-17-505 reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, Burkhart has failed to demonstrate from the text of the law and actual fact that there are a substantial number of instances where the law cannot be applied constitutionally. Lyons, 802 S.W.2d at 593 (Tenn.1990). The overbreadth challenge to the statutes is therefore without merit.