Metz v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Metz’s convictions, holding that OCGA § 42-5-17 was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct because he had fair warning that the guard line marked a place where inmates were kept and that he was required to leave after being ordered to desist from standing there. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing Metz’s proposed First Amendment jury instruction, which was not precisely adjusted to the law governing a government-owned correctional facility treated as a nonpublic forum.