State v. Smith
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1DissentJustice Meyer
Today the majority finds the language of N.C.G.S. § 14-190.1 ambiguous and concludes, applying the rule of Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 99 L.Ed. 905 (1955), the Court must resolve this ambiguity in favor of lenity toward the defendant. I find no ambiguity, and for that reason I must dissent.
*445The language of our statute shows a legislative intent to punish the sale of each separate obscene item, i.e., each separate magazine, film, book, etc. First, after a general statement that it is “unlawful ... to intentionally disseminate obscenity,” a definition of “disseminates obscenity” follows.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
- City of Madison v. NickelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
- Educational Books, Inc. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1984
- State v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988