State v. Mintz

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Mintz

89 S.E.2d 463, 242 N.C. 761, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 678

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 19, 1955·No. 148·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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.

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

Pincite

89 S.E.2d 463 (State v. Mintz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related