State v. Williams

196 S.E.2d 248, 283 N.C. 386, 1973 N.C. LEXIS 972
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Williams. Read the opinion of the Court — 279 N.C. 663
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 9, 1973·No. No. 54·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in denying defendant’s motion to quash the bill of indictment. Defendant contends that the bill of indictment should be quashed because G.S. 14-21 is unconstitutional.

G.S. 14-21 provides:

“Every person who is convicted of ravishing and carnally knowing any female of the age of twelve years or more by force and against her will, or who is convicted of unlawfully and carnally knowing and abusing any female child under the age of twelve years, shall suffer death: Provided, if the jury shall so recommend at the time of rendering its verdict in open court, the punishment shall be imprisonment for life in the State’s prison, and the court shall so instruct the jury.”

In support of his contentions, defendant relies upon Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 33 L.Ed. 2d 346, 92 S.Ct. 2726, and State v. Waddell, 282 N.C. 431, 194 S.E. 2d 19.

[388]*388The holdings in Furman v. Georgia, supra, and State v. Waddell, supra, do not affect the constitutionality of that portion of G.S. 14-21 which defines the elements of the crime of rape.

Furman v. Georgia, supra, stands for the proposition that the imposition of the death penalty under certain state statutes (such as G.S. 14-21) is unconstitutional. State v. Davis, 282 N.C. 107, 191 S.E. 2d 664.

Even if State v. Waddell, supra, supported defendant’s contentions, and we do not think it does, its holdings as to the death penalty are not effective as to offenses committed prior to 18 January 1973. Defendant is charged with raping Deborah Ann Price on 25 September 1972.

Defendant did not receive a sentence of death and, therefore, has no standing to raise the constitutionality of the death penalty or of the statute G.S. 14-21 because it provides for that punishment. State v. Duncan, 282 N.C. 412, 193 S.E. 2d 65; State v. Wright, 282 N.C. 364, 192 S.E. 2d 818; State v. Davis, supra.

We have carefully examined the entire record and find it to be free from prejudicial error.

No error.

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

State v. Williams, 196 S.E.2d 248, 283 N.C. 386, 1973 N.C. LEXIS 972 (N.C. 1973).

196 S.E.2d 248 (State v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Furman v. Georgia
408 U.S. 238 (Supreme Court, 1972)
State v. Wright
192 S.E.2d 818 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. Davis
191 S.E.2d 664 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. Duncan
193 S.E.2d 65 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. Waddell
194 S.E.2d 19 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1973)