Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Ellison

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 8, 2013No. 363PA11Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Hudson

I write separately because, while I concur that defendants’ offenses are covered by the plain language of N.C.G.S. § 90-95(h)(4), I find the result troubling in that it may permit prosecution of some persons whose activities are beyond the intended reach of the original legislation.

The legislative intent behind subsection 90-95(h) shows that the law was meant to punish large-scale distributors of illegal drugs. The *445public papers of Governor Hunt, who requested that the General Assembly enact the measure, show such intent:

We must strengthen our commitment to fighting the big-time drug dealer…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Schweiker v. ChilickySupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. United States v. CraftSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  5. State v. PerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986

7 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