Legal Opinion

State v. Lockamy

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 15, 1976No. 764SC546PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HEDRICK, Judge.

Defendants assign as error the court’s denial of their motions to quash the bills of indictment. Defendants argue that G.S. 20-106 is unconstitutionally vague. Suffice it to say this Court held G.S. 20-106 to be constitutional in State v. Rook, 26 N.C. App. 33, 215 S.E. 2d 159 (1975), appeal dismissed for lack of substantial constitutional question, 288 N.C. 250, 217 S.E. 2d 674 (1975). This assignment of error is overruled.

Defendants next contend the court erred in denying their motions for judgment as of nonsuit. In view of our decision in this case further elaboration on the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. TomblinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  2. State v. . NortonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  3. State v. RookCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
  4. State v. DouglasCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. OliphantCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2013
  2. State v. PattersonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  3. State v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
  4. State v. CurlCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  5. State v. KellyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018

1 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