State v. Webb

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Webb

216 S.E.2d 382, 26 N.C. App. 526, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2101

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 2, 1975

Docket7528SC131

StatusPublished

This text of 216 S.E.2d 382 (State v. Webb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. Webb, 216 S.E.2d 382, 26 N.C. App. 526, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2101 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

Prior to his pleading not guilty to the charge of committing a crime against nature, defendant’s motion to quash the indictment of that charge was denied. He assigns error to this denial, contending that the statute upon which the indictment was based, G.S. 14-177, is unconstitutionally vague. This specific question was decided adverse to defendant’s contention in State v. Moles, 17 N.C. App. 664, 195 S.E. 2d 352 (1973) and in State v. Crouse, 22 N.C. App. 47, 205 S.E. 2d 361 (1974). See Perkins v. State of North Carolina, 234 F. Supp. 333 (W.D.N.C. 1964).

*527 Defendant also urges that the trial court erred in denying his motion to arrest the judgment on his conviction of committing a crime against nature. His contention is that the crimes of assault with intent to commit rape, G.S. 14-22, and committing a crime against nature, G.S. 14-177; are essentially the same offense, and convictions for both charges upon the evidence in the cases on this appeal constitute putting defendant twice in jeopardy for one crime. We disagree. The elements of each offense are distinct and different. Furthermore, the record discloses ample and separate evidence to support verdicts on the charges contained in the indictments numbered 72CR19196 and 72CR19195.

We have carefully reviewed the record and find no error appearing therein with respect to the indictments, arraignments, the trial and the judgments.

No error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Arnold concur.

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

PARKER, Judge.

Prior to his pleading not guilty to the charge of committing a crime against nature, defendant’s motion to quash the indictment of that charge was denied. He assigns error to this denial, contending that the statute upon which the indictment was based, G.S. 14-177, is unconstitutionally vague. This specific question was decided adverse to defendant’s contention in State v. Moles, 17 N.C. App. 664, 195 S.E. 2d 352 (1973) and in State v. Crouse, 22 N.C. App. 47, 205 S.E. 2d 361 (1974). See Perkins v. State of North Carolina, 234 F. Supp. 333 (W.D.N.C. 1964).

*527 Defendant also urges that the trial court erred in denying his motion to arrest the judgment on his conviction of committing a crime against nature. His contention is that the crimes of assault with intent to commit rape, G.S. 14-22, and committing a crime against nature, G.S. 14-177; are essentially the same offense, and convictions for both charges upon the evidence in the cases on this appeal constitute putting defendant twice in jeopardy for one crime. We disagree. The elements of each offense are distinct and different. Furthermore, the record discloses ample and separate evidence to support verdicts on the charges contained in the indictments numbered 72CR19196 and 72CR19195.

We have carefully reviewed the record and find no error appearing therein with respect to the indictments, arraignments, the trial and the judgments.

No error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Arnold concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 S.E.2d 382, 26 N.C. App. 526, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-webb-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack