Legal Opinion

State v. Hall

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 27, 1982No. 101PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HUSKINS, Justice.

Defendant first assigns as error the failure of the indictment to specify that the kidnapping was without the victim’s consent. We have held this term that such a contention has no merit.

The term ‘kidnap,’ by itself, continues to have a precise and definite legal meaning under G.S. 14-39(a), to wit, the unlawful seizure of a person against his will. ... In short, common sense dictates that one cannot unlawfully kidnap or unlawfully restrain another with his consent. This being so, we hold that the indictment adequately alleged the essential elements of kidnapping.... We hold…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. State v. SturdivantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  2. State v. BentonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  3. State v. SmallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  4. State v. RedfernSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  5. State v. PotterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. State v. DiazSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  2. State v. BeatySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  3. State v. KyleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1993
  4. State v. WrightSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
  5. State v. BarnesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1996

23 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