Provo City Corp. v. Thompson, 2004 UT 14

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court reviewed a telephone-harassment conviction under Utah Code section 76-9-201(1)(b). It held that the defendant had standing to challenge the unwanted-calls provision but that, after affirming the conviction under that valid provision, the court of appeals lacked a proper basis to decide the constitutionality of the separate repeated-calls provision. The court vacated the court of appeals' determination concerning the repeated-calls provision as advisory and without precedential value.

Holdings

1. A defendant lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of a separate statutory provision when the defendant's conviction is sustained under another valid provision and invalidating the challenged provision would not redress any injury.
2. The First Amendment overbreadth doctrine permits a defendant to assert the rights of persons not before the court, but it does not eliminate the requirement that the defendant have a cognizable injury in fact and that favorable relief redress the injury.
3. The Utah Court of Appeals correctly affirmed Thompson's conviction under the unwanted-calls provision of Utah Code section 76-9-201(1)(b).
4. A court may not adjudicate the constitutionality of a statutory provision unnecessary to the outcome of the case when the parties lack standing to litigate that provision.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Thompson had standing to challenge the facial constitutionality of the repeated-call provision of Utah Code section 76-9-201(1)(b) when his conviction was upheld under the separate unwanted-calls provision.
2. Whether the Utah Court of Appeals properly reached and invalidated the repeated-call provision as facially overbroad.
3. Whether the Utah Court of Appeals correctly affirmed Thompson's conviction under the unwanted-calls provision.

Disposition

vacated