Legal Opinion

State v. Clemmons

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided September 18, 1990No. 8914SC1332PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

In his first assignment of error, defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to quash two of the three bills of indictment as being duplicitous of a single offense. We do not agree.

The first indictment charges defendant with solicitation of obstruction of justice in the case of State v. Friemark. “The gravamen of the offense of solicitation to commit a felony lies in counseling, enticing, or inducing another to commit a crime.” State v. Tyner, 50 N.C. App. 206, 207, 272 S.E.2d 626, 627 (1980), disc. review denied, 302 N.C. 633, 280 S.E.2d 451 (1981). Between 16 and 18…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Henderson v. KibbeSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. State v. OdomSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  4. State v. GreerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  5. State v. HagemanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. MeltonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2018
  2. State v. BlountCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
  3. Aycock v. PadgettCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  4. State v. CousinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2014
  5. State v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011

3 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