Legal Opinion

Matter of Banks

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 6, 1978No. 44PublishedCited by 137 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MOORE, Justice.

The State argues that the trial court erred in ruling that G.S. 14-202, the so-called “Peeping Tom” statute, is unconstitutional. Respondent, however, contends that this statute is unconstitutional for two reasons. First, that it is unconstitutionally vague, because “men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. . ." Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 70 L.Ed. 322, 46 S.Ct. 126 (1926).

G.S. 14-202 provides:

“Secretly peeping into room occupied by female person. — Any person who shall peep secretly into any room…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  3. Lanzetta v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  4. Zwickler v. KootaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  5. Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952

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

3Cited by137 opinions

  1. Woodson v. RowlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  2. Teachy v. Coble Dairies, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  3. Mazda Motors of America, Inc. v. Southwestern Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  4. Westminster Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Zoning Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2001
  5. Lunsford v. MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2014

132 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