ÿWPC ¢yÀ¸JäIzçÐlßçáŠB½èÀò8EOÞ,%3ÄMºP£¡Oü¨± ²8¶˜P³ÊA‘±öCƒ–œQ+µ q!éoõØ«®‚ª£ÔÓ›ãÔš¥cTØæÖ©7ïèx¬õ‚x–ÂdRÊÈg Oi_iñ÷S¿›à1…éü™³ÃÙäÔ7£xzŽ-_@¾õ½Z%LávÐH—´0b˜×Ò“¸d(÷P¿Múììf˜(NØÔÖ«ãTÈ0žÉ4of-qäÆgˆF…ªåÎN-LÞ–±G6ƒ§ÎÅ’a<3.ì¡?—¾šÁ \Îpg¡½NP ²8ç({½€½ˆšC¼6\» ü0¡P{ž”‡a+mrï6“:MЩC}g/õ$m=f´à'±Îæ¯Üp(Æ}6ÙH“yÅT¬ "/}.Mº;˜äŸ.n³ B''ˆdï5c½†x[,Ô>öȺÈB¤7¶Dÿï×ß,?v{ƒ (hò ÖÄû1äëáØ¦$Y4ôAËÉ×Bm\Íã¨]=ã¬á#µOõ ˜/&Ö… mÔ¹øgò³CíÇ2/û?‰fXO÷Çì\ò¸*c»šçÝ0ä@ÿþÏͯѓ¯$c©,ØÄeeÓ’\l{¤3FG½Êb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ©‘ Æ: ÆÆÆÆŒ 0DRN–~˜éEÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿb 0ë     Bôô 0¤ D5µ D-ê 0K ASbƵ 0¤{ 0D A«c˜HP LaserJet 5Ü,,,,Ü0»Ǩu)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularfdJ)bk1x4œ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ŸÝ ƒRt.$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÁT ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€We€have€gleaned€the€facts€in€this€case€from€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€a€Motion€for€Bill€of€Particulars€filed€byÐ ° Ðthe€Defendant,€a€Response€to€Motion€for€Bill€of€Particulars€filed€by€the€State,€and€from€the€transcript€of€the€guilty€pleaÐ xÈ Ðproceeding.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó tÝ ƒRt.$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÁT ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€State€contends€that€the€Defendantððs€challenge€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„16„510€on€groundsÐ ° Ðof€Ô_ÔoverbreadthÔ_Ô€does€not€fall€within€the€scope€of€the€reservation€of€the€certified€question€of€law.€€Although€the€DefendantÐ xÈ Ðdid€not€specifically€challenge€the€statute€at€issue€as€being€Ô_ÔoverbroadÔ_Ô€in€the€order€reserving€his€certified€question€of€law,Ð @ Ðhe€did€challenge€the€statute€generally€as€ð ðÔ_ÔviolativeÔ_Ô€of€the€free€speech€clauses€of€the€United€States€and€TennesseeÐ X ÐConstitutions.ðð€€We€will€therefore€address€the€Defendantððs€argument€concerning€Ô_ÔoverbreadthÔ_Ô.Ð Ð  Ðà  àFurthermore,€in€the€order€reserving€his€certified€question€of€law,€the€Defendant€contended€that€the€statute€isÐ ˜è Ðalso€vague.€€However,€he€does€not€now€raise€this€issue€for€our€review. ßÝ ƒRt.$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÁT ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€Defendant€concedes€that€the€Stateððs€interest€in€enacting€this€legislation€is€compelling.- ù-(|G2t.$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¨„»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÇÜò»»Ô d(|3Á$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¨„»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Á$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¨„»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ªì»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ªì»»»ÔÑ8€º;XXdð»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îñÏªìÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼ªì»îîñÏ #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€May€9,€2000Ð X ÐÔ‡Xº;X»¼ªìÔÌò òÔ#†¼ªì»XXº;#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JERRY€LANIERòòóóÔ‡Xº;X»¼ªìÔó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Dyer€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€C99„207€€€€€€€Lee€Moore,€Judge€Ð  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W1999„00905„CCA„R3„CD€„Filed€November€8,€2000Ð ×'  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant€entered€a€plea€of€nolo€contendere€to€the€charge€of€retaliation€for€past€action,€reservingÐ ¶ Ða€certified€question€of€law€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€37(b)(2)(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô).€€The€trialÐ ¦ö Ðcourt€sentenced€him€to€one€year€incarceration€and€ordered€that€the€sentence€run€consecutively€toÐ –æ Ðpreviously€imposed€sentences.€€In€this€appeal,€the€Defendant€presents€his€reserved€certified€questionÐ †Ö Ðof€law:€whether€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„16„510,€the€statute€under€which€he€was€convicted,Ð vÆ Ðis€constitutional.€€We€hold€that€the€statute€is€constitutional€and€accordingly€affirm€the€DefendantððsÐ f¶ Ðconviction.€€Ð V¦ ÐÓ†ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€ó óÐ 6† ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ªì»àXº;Ž#ÔÔ‡Xº;X.¼ªìÔRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€Jòòerry€L.€Smith,óó€òòóóandòò€JamesóóÐ f ÐÔ_ÔCòòurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ôóó,€Jòòr.,€JJ.óó€joined.Ð V ÐÌSteve€Ô_ÔMcEwenÔ_Ô,€Mountain€City,€Tennessee€and€H.€Tod€Taylor,€Assistant€District€Public€Defender,Ð æ6 ÐÔ_ÔDyersburgÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Jerry€Lanier.Ð Ö& ЀÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Kim€R.€Helper,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€C.Ð ¶!  ÐPhillip€Ô_ÔBivensÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General,€James€E.€Lanier,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€andÐ ¦"ö! ÐKaren€Waddell€Burns,€Assistant€District€Attorney,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð –#æ" ÐÌÓÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ªì»XXº;F#ÔÔ‡Xº;X»¼ªìÔÐ f&¶!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ªì»XXº;X #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xº;X»¼ªìÔÌÓÓà  àOn€June€14,€1999,€the€Dyer€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€the€Defendant,€Jerry€Lanier,€on€oneÐ 6)†$( Ðcount€of€possession€of€a€controlled€substance€in€a€penal€institution€and€on€one€count€of€retaliationÐ +f&* Ðfor€past€action.€€On€August€27,€1999,€the€Defendant€entered€a€plea€of€nolo€contendere€to€the€chargeÐ ö,F(,ý÷ Ðof€retaliation€for€past€action,€and€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€charge€of€possession€of€a€controlledÐ ° Ðsubstance€in€a€penal€institution.€€As€part€of€his€plea€agreement,€the€Defendant€reserved€a€certifiedÐ à Ðquestion€of€law€regarding€the€constitutionality€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„16„510,€the€statuteÐ pÀ Ðgoverning€the€offense€of€retaliation€for€past€action.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€as€a€Range€IÐ P   Ðstandard€offender€to€one€year€in€the€Department€of€Correction€and€ordered€that€the€sentence€runÐ 0 € Ðconsecutively€€to€previously€imposed€sentences.€€The€Defendant€now€appeals,€presenting€hisÐ `  Ðreserved€certified€question€of€law€for€our€review:€whether€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„16„510Ð ð@  Ðis€constitutional.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€record€in€this€case€contains€limited€information€concerning€the€factual€basis€forÐ à Ðthe€Defendantððs€plea,€it€appears€that€the€Defendantððs€current€conviction€for€retaliation€for€past€actionÐ pÀ Ðstemmed€from€an€incident€which€occurred€on€May€3,€1999.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€that€day,€the€Defendant€apparentlyÐ P  Ðappeared€in€the€Dyer€County€General€Sessions€Court€on€unrelated€charges,€and€the€General€SessionsÐ 0€ Ðjudge€set€the€Defendantððs€bond€at€$50,000.€€While€being€transported€with€another€inmate€to€the€DyerÐ ` ÐCounty€Jail€after€appearing€in€court,€the€Defendant€told€the€deputy€driving€the€patrol€unit€in€whichÐ ð@ Ðhe€was€riding€that€the€judge€was€ð ðcrazyðð€for€setting€a€high€bond.€€He€also€told€the€deputy€that€he€wasÐ Ð  Ðgoing€to€shoot€the€judge€and€asked€the€deputy€to€tell€the€judge€that€he€planned€to€do€so.€Ð °"  ÐÌà  àAs€a€preliminary€matter,€we€must€first€address€the€Stateððs€contention€that€the€Defendant€failedÐ p&À!$ Ðto€properly€reserve€the€certified€question€of€law€that€he€now€presents€for€our€consideration.€€TheÐ P( #& ÐState€argues€that€the€Defendant€did€not€comply€with€the€requirements€for€certification€of€a€questionÐ ° Ðof€law€which€are€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€37(b)€and€in€òòState€v.€Prestonóó,Ð à Ð759€S.W.2d€647€(Tenn.€1988).€€The€State€thus€contends€that€this€appeal€should€be€dismissed.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àRule€37€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€that€Ð 0 € ÐÓÓà8  à[Ô_Ôa]nÔ_Ô€appeal€lies€from€any€order€or€judgment€in€a€criminal€proceeding€where€the€lawÐ `  Ðprovides€for€such€appeal,€and€from€any€judgment€of€conviction€.€.€.€[Ô_Ôu]ponÔ_Ô€a€plea€ofÐ P  Ðnolo€contendere€if€.€.€.€Defendant€entered€into€a€plea€agreement€under€Rule€11(e)€butÐ ð@  Ðexplicitly€reserved€with€the€consent€of€the€state€and€of€the€court€the€right€to€appealÐ à0  Ða€certified€question€of€law€that€is€Ô_ÔdispositiveÔ_Ô€of€the€case€.€.€.€.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÆÓTenn.€R.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€37(b)(2)(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô).€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Prestonóó,€759€S.W.2d€647€(Tenn.€1988),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€defined€ð ðtheÐ pÀ Ðprerequisites€to€the€consideration€of€the€merits€of€a€question€of€law€certified€pursuant€toÐ P  ÐÔ_ÔTenn.R.Crim.P.Ô_Ô€37(b)(2)(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€or€(iv)ðð€as€follows:Ð 0€ ÐÓÓà8  àRegardless€of€what€has€appeared€in€prior€petitions,€orders,€colloquy€in€open€court€orÐ ` Ðotherwise,€the€final€order€or€judgment€from€which€the€time€begins€to€run€to€pursueÐ P Ða€Ô_ÔT.R.A.P.Ô_Ô€3€appeal€must€contain€a€statement€of€the€Ô_ÔdispositiveÔ_Ô€certified€question€ofÐ ð@ Ðlaw€reserved€by€the€defendant€for€appellate€review€and€the€question€of€law€must€beÐ à0 Ðstated€so€as€to€clearly€identify€the€scope€and€the€limits€of€the€legal€issue€reserved.€.Ð Ð  Ð.€.€Also,€the€order€must€state€that€the€certified€question€was€expressly€reserved€as€partÐ À! Ðof€the€plea€agreement,€that€the€State€and€the€trial€judge€consented€to€the€reservationÐ °"  Ðand€that€the€State€and€the€trial€judge€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€question€is€Ô_ÔdispositiveÔ_ÔÐ  #ð! Ðof€the€case.€.€.€.€No€issue€beyond€the€scope€of€the€certified€question€will€beÐ $à" Ðconsidered.Ѐ%Ð #Ð Ð  ÐÌÓSÓòòId.óó€at€650;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔPendergrassÔ_Ôóó,€937€S.W.2d€834,€836„37€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Irwinóó,€962Ð `'°"% ÐS.W.2d€477,€479€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€burden€of€assuring€that€these€prerequisites€have€been€met€is€onÐ @)$' Ðthe€defendant.€€òòId.Ð  +p&) Їà  àóóIn€this€case,€the€judgment€form,€entered€on€August€27,€1999,€contains€the€followingÐ ° Ðstatement:€ð ðDefendant€preserves€Ô_ÔdispositiveÔ_Ô€certified€question€of€law€for€appeal€as€toÐ à Ðconstitutionality€of€retaliation€for€past€action€statute.ðð€€No€further€information€concerning€theÐ pÀ Ðcertified€question€of€law€is€included€on€the€judgment€form.€€However,€the€record€also€contains€anÐ P   Ðorder,€entered€on€September€14,€1999,€which€states:Ð 0 € ÐÓÓà8  àà ` àComes€the€Defendant€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€ProcedureÐ `  Ð37(b)(2)(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€and€(iv)€and€with€the€consent€of€both€the€Court€and€State€reserves€theÐ P  Ðfollowing€certified€Ô_ÔdispositiveÔ_Ô€question€of€law€for€appeal€upon€Defendantððs€NoÐ ð@  ÐContest€Plea€to€the€charge€of€Retaliation€for€Past€Action:Ðà0 Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àWhether€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€39„16„510€is€unconstitutionally€vague€or€Ô_ÔviolativeÔ_Ô€of€the€dueÐ À Ðprocess€or€free€speech€clauses€of€either€the€United€States€or€Tennessee€Constitutions.аРР ÐÌÌÌÓ[%Óà  àAlthough€the€judgment€form€contains€a€statement€concerning€the€certified€question€of€law,Ð pÀ Ðthe€statement€does€not€fully€satisfy€the€òòóórequirements,€as€outlined€by€our€supreme€court,€to€properlyÐ P  Ðreserve€a€certified€question€of€law€for€appellate€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòPrestonóó,€759€S.W.2d€at€650.€€However,Ð 0€ Ðthe€State€concedes,€and€we€agree,€that€the€subsequent€order,€entered€on€September€14,€1999,€doesÐ ` Ðcontain€sufficient€information€to€satisfy€the€òòPrestonóó€requirements.€€òòóóIt€contains€ð ða€statement€of€theÐ ð@ ÐÔ_ÔdispositiveÔ_Ô€certified€question€of€law€reserved€by€the€defendant€for€appellate€reviewðð€identifying€theÐ Ð  Ðscope€and€limits€of€the€reserved€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€It€also€states€that€the€question€was€reserved€as€partÐ °"  Ðof€the€Defendantððs€plea€agreement.€€Moreover,€it€states€that€the€State€and€trial€court€consented€to€theÐ $à" Ðreservation€and€agreed€that€the€question€is€Ô_ÔdispositiveÔ_Ô.€Ð p&À!$ ÐÌà  àBecause€the€subsequent€order€was€filed€before€filing€of€the€notice€of€appeal,€which€occurredÐ 0*€%( Ðon€September€15,€1999,€we€conclude€that€the€order€effectively€cured€any€defects€in€the€originalÐ ,`'* Ðjudgment€concerning€reservation€of€the€certified€question€of€law.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€hasÐ ° Ðheld€that€ð ðan€order€entered€by€a€trial€court€òòafteróó€the€filing€of€the€notice€of€appeal€in€the€Court€ofÐ à ÐCriminal€Appeals€is€not€effective€to€remedy€noncompliance€with€Rule€37,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.,€becauseÐ pÀ Ðthe€trial€court€no€longer€has€jurisdiction.ðð€€òòIrwinóó,€962€S.W.2d€at€479€(emphasis€added);€òòsee€alsoóóÐ P   ÐòòÔ_ÔPendergrassÔ_Ôóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€837„38.€€Here,€the€trial€court€retained€jurisdiction€over€this€case€at€theÐ 0 € Ðtime€it€filed€the€order€dated€September€14,€1999;€the€notice€of€appeal€was€not€filed€until€theÐ `  Ðfollowing€day,€September€15,€1999.€€In€short,€we€conclude€that€the€Defendant€carried€his€burden€ofÐ ð@  Ðassuring€that€the€òòPrestonóó€prerequisites€were€met,€òòseeóó€òòPrestonóó,€759€S.W.2d€at€650,€and€that€theÐ Ð  Ðcertified€question€of€law€was€properly€reserved€for€appellate€review.Ð ° ÐÌà  àHaving€concluded€that€this€appeal€is€properly€before€us,€we€now€proceed€to€consider€theÐ pÀ Ðmerits€of€the€Defendantððs€appeal.€€€The€Defendant€challenges€the€constitutionality€of€Tennessee€CodeÐ P  ÐAnnotated€ðð€39„16„510,€the€statute€under€which€he€was€convicted.€€He€argues€that€the€statute€violatesÐ 0€ Ðthe€free€speech€clauses€of€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€òòSeeóó€U.S.€Const.€amend.Ð ` ÐI;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€19.€€Specifically,€he€contends€that€the€statute€is€not€narrowly€drawn€toÐ ð@ Ðadvance€the€Stateððs€interest€and€that€it€is€impermissibly€Ô_ÔoverbroadÔ_Ô.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„16„510€provides€as€follows:Ð $à" ÐÓÓ€à8  àà ` à(a)€€A€person€commits€the€offense€of€retaliation€for€past€action€who€harms€orÐ p&À!$ Ðthreatens€to€harm€a€witness€at€an€official€proceeding,€judge,€clerk,€juror€or€formerÐ `'°"% Ðjuror€by€any€unlawful€act€in€retaliation€for€anything€the€witness,€judge,€clerk,€or€jurorÐ P( #& Ðdid€in€an€official€capacity€as€witness,€judge,€clerk,€or€juror.€€The€offense€of€retaliationÐ @)$' Ðfor€past€action€shall€not€apply€to€an€employee€of€a€clerk€who€harms€or€threatens€toÐ 0*€%( Ðharm€such€clerk.òòóóÐ +p&)Ð Ð  ÐÓÓà  àà ` à(b)€A€violation€of€this€section€is€a€Class€E€felony.à0 È à€Ð,`'*È(#È(# Ðà  àThe€First€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€states€that€ð ðCongress€shall€make€noÐ ° Ðlaw€.€.€.€abridging€the€freedom€of€speech,€or€of€the€press€.€.€.€.ðð€€This€provision€is€applicable€to€theÐ à Ðstates€through€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.€€òòÔ_ÔCantwellÔ_Ô€v.€Connecticutóó,€310€U.S.€296,€303€(1940).€Ð pÀ ÐSimilarly,€Article€I,€ðð€19€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€free€communication€ofÐ P   Ðthoughts€and€opinions€is€one€of€the€invaluable€rights€of€man,€and€every€citizen€may€freely€speak,Ð 0 € Ðwrite,€and€print€on€any€subject,€being€responsible€for€abuse€of€that€liberty.ððÐ `  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€first€argues€that€the€statute€in€question€is€not€narrowly€drawn€and€is€not€theÐ Ð  Ðleast€restrictive€means€to€further€the€Stateððs€interest€in€protecting€judges€and€others€involved€in€theÐ ° Ðjudicial€process€from€harm.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Generally,€the€First€Amendment€prohibits€governmental€proscriptionÐ à Ðof€speech€based€upon€disapproval€of€the€ideas€expressed€through€the€speech.€€òòÔ_ÔR.A.V.Ô_Ô€v.€City€of€St.Ð pÀ ÐPaul,€Minn.óó€505€U.S.€377,€382€(1992).€€Regulations€based€on€the€content€of€speech€areÐ P  Ðpresumptively€invalid.€€òòId.óó€€Such€a€regulation€may€be€upheld€only€if€the€State€can€show€that€ð ðtheÐ 0€ Ðburden€placed€on€free€speech€rights€is€justified€by€a€compelling€State€interest,ðð€that€the€ð ðleastÐ ` Ðintrusive€meansðð€is€used€by€the€State€to€achieve€its€goals,€and€that€the€means€chosen€to€achieve€theÐ ð@ Ðgoals€ð ðÔ_Ôbear[sÔ_Ô]€a€substantial€relation€to€the€interest€being€served€by€the€statute€in€question.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔBemisÔ_ÔÐ Ð  ÐPentecostal€Church€v.€Stateóó,€731€S.W.2d€897,€903€(Tenn.€1987);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Smoky€MountainóóÐ °"  ÐòòSecrets,€Inc.óó,€937€S.W.2d€905,€911€(Tenn.€1996).€€€òòóóÐ $à" ÐÌà  àHowever,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€emphasized€that€Ð P( #& ÐÓÓà8  àthe€right€of€free€speech€is€not€absolute€at€all€times€and€under€all€circumstances.€Ð ° ÐThere€are€certain€well„defined€and€narrowly€limited€classes€of€speech,€the€preventionÐ  ð Ðand€punishment€of€which€has€never€been€thought€to€raise€any€Constitutional€problem.€Ð à ÐThese€include€the€lewd€and€obscene,€the€profane,€the€libelous,€and€the€insulting€orÐ €Ð Ðð ðfightingðð€wordsð"ð€those€which€by€their€very€utterance€inflict€injury€or€tend€to€inciteÐ pÀ Ðan€immediate€breach€of€the€peace.€€It€has€been€well€observed€that€such€utterances€areÐ ` ° Ðno€essential€part€of€any€exposition€of€ideas,€and€are€of€such€slight€social€value€as€aÐ P   Ðstep€to€truth€that€any€benefit€that€Ô_ÔmayÔ_Ô€be€derived€from€them€is€clearly€outweighed€byÐ @  Ðthe€social€interest€in€order€and€morality.Ð0 €Ð Ð  ÐÌÓóAÓòòÔ_ÔChaplinskyÔ_Ô€v.€New€Hampshireóó,€315€U.S.€568,€571„72€(1942)€(citations€omitted).€€Threats€of€violenceÐ `  Ðdo€not€fall€within€the€parameters€of€constitutionally€protected€speech€because€of€the€governmentððsÐ ð@  Ðinterest€in€ð ðprotecting€individuals€from€the€fear€of€violence,€from€the€disruption€that€fear€engenders,Ð Ð  Ðand€from€the€possibility€that€the€threatened€violence€will€occur.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔR.A.V.Ô_Ôóó,€505€U.S.€at€388;€òòsee€alsoóóÐ ° ÐòòWatts€v.€United€Statesóó,€394€U.S.€705,€707„08€(1969).€€€Furthermore,€the€government€may€regulateÐ à Ðor€completely€ban€speech€proposing€illegal€activity.€€òòVillage€of€Hoffman€Estates€v.€Ô_ÔFlipsideÔ_Ô,Ð pÀ ÐHoffman€Estates,€Inc.óó,€455€U.S.€489,€496€(1982).€€However,€sòòóótatutes€which€regulate€unprotectedÐ P  Ðspeech€must€be€ð ðcarefully€drawn€or€authoritatively€construed€to€punish€only€unprotected€speech€andÐ 0€ Ð[must]€not€be€susceptible€of€application€to€protected€expression.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔGoodingÔ_Ô€v.€Wilsonóó,€405€U.S.€518,Ð ` Ð522€(1972).Ð ð@ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€statute€at€issue€is€Ô_ÔoverbroadÔ_Ô.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€ð ðððÔ_ÔOverbreadthÔ_Ôðð€is€aÐ °"  Ðjudicially€created€doctrine€designed€to€prevent€the€chilling€of€protected€expression.€€The€doctrine€ofÐ $à" ÐÔ_Ôoverbreadth€derives€from€the€recognition€that€an€unconstitutional€restriction€of€expression€may€deterÐ ° Ðprotected€speech€by€parties€not€before€the€court€and€thereby€escape€judicial€review.ðð€€16A€Am.€Jur.Ð à Ð2d€òòConstitutional€Lawóó€ðð€411€(1998).€€In€other€words,€a€statute€is€overbroad€if€it€ð ðinhibits€the€FirstÐ pÀ ÐAmendment€rights€of€other€parties.ðð€€òòVillage€of€Hoffman€Estatesóó,€455€U.S.€at€495.€€The€UnitedÐ P   ÐStates€Supreme€Court€has€ð ðcautioned€that€the€doctrine€of€overbreath€is€ððstrong€medicineðð€to€be€usedÐ 0 € Ðððsparingly€and€only€as€a€last€resort.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Lakatosóó,€900€S.W.2d€699,€701€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð `  Ð1994)€(quoting€òòBroadrick€v.€Oklahomaóó,€413€U.S.€601,€613€(1973)).€€ð ð[T]o€succeed€in€a€challengeÐ ð@  Ðbased€on€overbreadth€a€defendant€must€demonstrate€from€the€text€of€the€law€and€actual€fact€that€thereÐ Ð  Ðare€a€substantial€number€of€instances€where€the€law€cannot€be€applied€constitutionally.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð ° ÐLyonsóó,€802€S.W.2d€590,€593€(Tenn.€1990);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòVillage€of€Hoffman€Estatesóó,€455€U.S.€at€494.Ð à ÐBecause€the€First€Amendment€prevents€states€from€punishing€ð ðthe€use€of€words€or€language€notÐ pÀ Ðwithin€ððnarrowly€limited€classes€of€speech,ðððð€òòGoodingóó,€405€U.S.€at€521„22€(quoting€òòChaplinskyóó,€315Ð P  ÐU.S.€at€571),€a€statute€must€be€narrowly€drawn€so€as€ð ðto€punish€only€unprotected€speech€and€not€beÐ 0€ Ðsusceptible€of€application€to€protected€expression.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€522.€Ð ` ÐÌà  àApplying€these€principles€to€the€case€at€hand,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„16„510€seeksÐ Ð  Ðto€prohibit€threats€of€violence€against€specific€individuals€involved€in€the€judicial€process.€€AsÐ °"  Ðpreviously€stated,€threats€of€violence€are€not€a€form€of€protected€speech.€€òòSeeóó€òòR.A.V.óó,€505€U.S.€atÐ $à" Ð388;€òòWattsóó,€394€U.S.€at€707„08.€€We€believe€that€the€speech€proscribed€by€Tennessee€CodeÐ p&À!$ ÐAnnotated€ðð€39„16„510,€namely€ð ðthreaten[ing]€to€harm€.€.€.€[a]€witness,€judge,€clerk,€or€juror,ðð€enjoysÐ P( #& Ðno€First€Amendment€protection.€€Nor€does€the€statute€at€issue€implicate€any€other€constitutionallyÐ 0*€%( Ðprotected€right.€€The€statute€is€narrowly€drawn€to€punish€only€unprotected€speech;€it€prohibits€onlyÐ ,`'* Ðthreats€of€violence.€€Moreover,€the€Defendant€has€not€shown€that€ð ðthere€are€a€substantial€number€ofÐ ° Ðinstances€where€the€law€cannot€be€applied€constitutionally.ðð€€òòLyonsóó,€802€S.W.2d€at€593.€Ð à ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€suggests,€however,€that€the€statute€is€overbroad€because€it€ð ðdoes€not€requireÐ P   Ða€likelihood€that€the€threats€to€harm€will€produce€the€unlawful€activity.ðð€€He€argues€that€because€heÐ 0 € Ðwas€restrained€in€the€back€of€a€patrol€car€at€the€time€he€made€the€threat,€there€was€no€likelihood€thatÐ `  Ðhe€would€actually€shoot€the€judge.€€Federal€courts€have€concluded€that€ð ð[t]he€prosecution€need€notÐ ð@  Ðprove€that€the€defendant€had€the€ability€or€actually€intended€to€carry€out€[a]€threat.ðð€€òòMelugin€v.Ð Ð  ÐHamesóó,€38€F.3d€1478,€1485(9thòò€óóCir.1994)€(citing€òòUnited€States€v.€Khorramióó,€895€F.2d€1186,€1192„93€Ð ° Ð(7th€Cir.€1990)).€€Likewise,€we€believe€that€there€is€no€necessity€for€the€State€to€prove€that€threatsÐ à Ðof€harm€made€in€contravention€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„16„510€are€likely€to€produceÐ pÀ Ðunlawful€activity.Ð P  ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„16„510€does€not€€infringe€on€the€privilegeÐ ` Ðof€free€speech€and€that€it€is€therefore€constitutional.€€Accordingly,€we€AFFIRM€the€judgment€of€theÐ ð@ Ðtrial€court.Ð Ð  Ðà  àÌÌ€€€Ð p&À!$ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð P( #& Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€JUDGEÐ 0*€%( ÐÐ ,`'* ЇÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à