Legal Opinion

State v. Watson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 5, 2005No. COA04-855PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WYNN, Judge.

Where the language of a statute allows a “person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what [conduct] is prohibited,” the statute is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Elam, 302 N.C. 157, 161-62, 273 S.E.2d 661, 664-65 (1981) (citation omitted). In this appeal, Defendant challenges the constitutionalty of the felony stalking statute, (section 14-277.3 of the- North Carolina General Statutes) on the grounds that it is too vague. Because we hold that applying the plain meaning and common usage to words in section 14-277.3 puts an ordinary person on notice of…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Francis v. FranklinSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. State v. ElamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  5. Baker v. MartinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. WootenCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
  2. Tyll v. WilletsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2013
  3. Davis v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2010
  4. State v. Desperados, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
  5. State v. GriffinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2019

3 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