In re D.H., a child

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed a juvenile delinquency adjudication under OCGA § 20-2-1181 for disrupting or interfering with the operation of a public school. The court held that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague and declined to consider the appellant’s overbreadth challenge because it had not been properly raised in the trial court.

Holdings

1. OCGA § 20-2-1181 is not unconstitutionally vague because the phrase "disrupt or interfere with the operation of any public school" uses words of ordinary meaning that provide fair notice of the conduct prohibited and sufficient guidance against arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
2. D.H. was procedurally barred from raising her overbreadth challenge on appeal because she did not identify overbreadth, protected speech or conduct, or the First Amendment in the trial court, and the trial court therefore did not distinctly rule on that challenge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether OCGA § 20-2-1181 is unconstitutionally vague because the terms "disrupt" and "interfere" are undefined.
2. Whether D.H. could raise on appeal an overbreadth challenge asserting that OCGA § 20-2-1181 punishes protected speech and conduct when that challenge was not properly raised or ruled upon in the trial court.

Disposition

affirmed