Watson v. State
293 Ga. 817
| Ga. | 2013Background
- In March 2009, Officer James Watson (on duty) transported 17‑year‑old Chase Browning after a dog attack, made a lewd gesture in the car, and subsequently sent sexually suggestive messages via Facebook/MySpace/text.
- Browning reported the messages; law enforcement recorded follow‑up phone calls in which Watson proposed meeting and discussed sodomy; Browning declined and later cooperated with authorities.
- Watson was indicted on two counts of solicitation of sodomy and two counts of violating his oath of office; convicted by a jury and sentenced to concurrent prison/probation terms.
- Watson appealed, arguing OCGA § 16‑6‑15 (solicitation of sodomy) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied (free speech, privacy, due process); he also challenged evidence sufficiency, the indictment, and jury instructions.
- The Georgia Supreme Court reaffirmed that the solicitation statute can be narrowly construed to avoid constitutional infirmities but analyzed whether the State proved the elements under that limiting construction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Watson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Facial and as‑applied constitutionality of solicitation statute | Statute infringes free speech, privacy, and due process; should be invalidated | Statute may be narrowly construed to reach only unprotected solicitation of sodomy consistent with Powell/Howard | The statute is constitutional when narrowly construed to prohibit only solicitation of sodomy outside protected private consensual conduct |
| 2) Vagueness / Due process from limiting construction | Narrowing renders statute vague and susceptible to arbitrary enforcement | Limiting construction provides fair notice by specifying public/commercial/force/incapacity exceptions | Court rejects vagueness claim; limiting construction gives ordinary person fair warning |
| 3) Sufficiency of evidence for solicitation of sodomy convictions | Watson: evidence insufficient under the statute’s limiting construction | State: messages and recorded calls solicited sodomy and support convictions | Evidence supported solicitation and the sexual act element, but failed to prove required aggravating element (public/commercial/force/incapacity); convictions for solicitation reversed |
| 4) Oath‑of‑office convictions premised on solicitation counts | Watson: Counts 1 & 3 rest on solicitation convictions which fail | State: oath counts validly charged based on solicitation allegations | Because solicitation convictions reversed and the oath counts were expressly premised on them, oath‑of‑office convictions must be reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. State, 270 Ga. 327 (limiting construction of sodomy statute to protect private consensual conduct)
- Howard v. State, 272 Ga. 242 (upholding solicitation statute under a narrow construction)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (due process invalidation of criminal bans on private consensual adult sexual conduct)
- Final Exit Network, Inc. v. State of Ga., 290 Ga. 508 (content‑based speech restrictions may survive if readily subject to limiting construction)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)