Home/Supreme Court of North Carolina/State v. Mintz

State v. Mintz

89 S.E.2d 463, 242 N.C. 761, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 678
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 19, 1955
Docket148
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 89 S.E.2d 463 (State v. Mintz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Mintz, 89 S.E.2d 463, 242 N.C. 761, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 678 (N.C. 1955).

Opinion

PeR CuRiam.

G.S. 14-177 defines the crime against nature as an “abominable and detestable” crime, and we held in & v. Spivey, 213 N.C. 45, 195 S.E. 1, that an attempt to commit the crime thus defined is an infamous act within the meaning of G.S. 14-3. We still adhere to that decision. Hence the sentence imposed in the court below was within the limitations permitted by law.

The other exceptive assignments of error present no substantial question which requires discussion. They fail to point out prejudicial error. Therefore, in .the trial below we find

No error.

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

Related

State v. Hageman
296 S.E.2d 433 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)
State v. Tyner
272 S.E.2d 626 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
State v. Harward
142 S.E.2d 691 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
Perkins v. State of North Carolina
234 F. Supp. 333 (W.D. North Carolina, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 S.E.2d 463, 242 N.C. 761, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mintz-nc-1955.