Legal Opinion

State v. Strickland

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 15, 1985No. 8429SC1155PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PHILLIPS, Judge.

Defendant’s first contention is that the prosecution should have been dismissed before trial, pursuant to his motion, because G.S. 14-202.1, which prohibits taking indecent liberties with children, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. This same contention was squarely rejected by our Supreme Court in State v. Elam, 302 N.C. 157, 273 S.E. 2d 661 (1981).

Defendant next contends that the court erred in failing to dismiss the case at the close of the evidence because the evidence is insufficient to warrant his conviction. The indictment is based on Section (a)(1) of G.S.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. ElamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  2. State v. TurmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. United States v. Alvin James PierceCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2002
  2. State v. HicksCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  3. Com. v. Crenshaw, E.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023
  4. State v. HolmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
  5. State v. SmallsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API