Legal Opinion

State v. Helms

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 26, 1958No. 74PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.

The bill of indictment is based on G.S. 90-106, which, in pertinent part, provides: “Fraudulent attempts to obtain drugs prohibited. — No person shall obtain or attempt to obtain a narcotic drug, or procure or attempt to procure the administration of a narcotic drug (a) by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or subterfuge; or (b) by the forgery or alteration of a prescription or of any written order; or (c) by the concealment of a material fact; or (d) by the use of false name or the giving of a false address.”

The quoted statutory provisions create and define four separate criminal oífenses:…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. State v. GreerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  2. Calloway v. WyattSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  3. State v. . MorganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  4. State v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  5. State v. EasonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. State v. SwaneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. State v. StokesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  3. State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  4. State v. BissetteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  5. State v. GreenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959

21 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