Wilson v. State

COCHRAN, J.,

filed a concurring opinion

in which JOHNSON and ALCALA, JJ., joined.

I agree with the majority that the evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction for telephone harassment. I respectfully disagree that the term “repeated” in the telephone-harassment statute means just “more than one telephone call.”1 We ought not jettison the discussion of the term “repeated” from our prior telephone-harassment decision, Scott v. State,2 particularly since the majority’s new definition clearly invites a vagueness and overbreadth challenge to the statute.3 The federal courts declared…