State v. Watson
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
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
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Francis v. FranklinSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- State v. ElamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- Baker v. MartinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. WootenCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
- Tyll v. WilletsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2013
- Davis v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2010
- State v. Desperados, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
- State v. GriffinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2019
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.