State v. Fredell
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MOORE, Justice.
The sole question presented by this appeal is: Did the trial court err in denying defendant’s motion to quash the warrant on the ground that the statute under which the defendant is charged is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite?
A motion to quash may challenge the constitutionality of the statute. State v. Vestal, 281 N.C. 517, 189 S.E. 2d 152 (1972); State v. Brewer, 258 N.C. 533, 129 S.E. 2d 262 (1962); State v. Glidden Co., 228 N.C. 664, 46 S.E. 2d 860 (1948).
Defendant was charged with a violation of G.S. 14-318.2(a), which provides:
“Any parent of a child less than 16…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- United States v. RainesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- State v. WaddellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- In Re BurrusSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
- Jackson v. Guilford County Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Diana Pepper Sevigny v. Andrew F. Dicksey, Individually, and the Town of Carolina Beach, (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1988
- In Re ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- In Re the Appeal of MartinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- State v. ByrdSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- State v. MappCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.