State v. Kennedy

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Kennedy

209 S.E.2d 838, 23 N.C. App. 743, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2211

Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided November 20, 1974·No. No. 745SC792·Published

Opinion

MARTIN, Judge.

Counsel for defendant admits he is unable to find prejudicial error committed at trial but urges this Court to hold G.S. 14-177 unconstitutionally vague. We have reviewed the record and also find no prejudicial error. Furthermore, we reaffirm State v. Moles, 17 N.C. App. 664, 195 S.E. 2d 352 (1973) where this Court upheld the validity of G.S. 14-177. In Perkins v. State of North Carolina, 234 F. Supp. 333 (1964), Chief Judge Craven also upheld the validity of this ! statute against an attack for vagueness by reading the statute in light of North Carolina Supreme Court interpretations thereof.

No error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MARTIN, Judge.

Counsel for defendant admits he is unable to find prejudicial error committed at trial but urges this Court to hold G.S. 14-177 unconstitutionally vague. We have reviewed the record and also find no prejudicial error. Furthermore, we reaffirm State v. Moles, 17 N.C. App. 664, 195 S.E. 2d 352 (1973) where this Court upheld the validity of G.S. 14-177. In Perkins v. State of North Carolina, 234 F. Supp. 333 (1964), Chief Judge Craven also upheld the validity of this ! statute against an attack for vagueness by reading the statute in light of North Carolina Supreme Court interpretations thereof.

No error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur.

State v. Kennedy, 209 S.E.2d 838, 23 N.C. App. 743, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2211 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

209 S.E.2d 838 (State v. Kennedy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related