{ "id": 4357018, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TRACY SCOTT HERMAN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Herman", "decision_date": "2012-06-05", "docket_number": "No. COA11-1291", "first_page": "204", "last_page": "211", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "221 N.C. App. 204" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "636 S.E.2d 787", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12637106 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "790", "parenthetical": "citations and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/636/0787-01" ] }, { "cite": "668 S.E.2d 594", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12642229 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "599" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/668/0594-01" ] }, { "cite": "661 S.E.2d 890", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12641224, 12641222, 12641223 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/661/0890-03", "/se2d/661/0890-01", "/se2d/661/0890-02" ] }, { "cite": "362 N.C. 368", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12641530 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/663/0433-02" ] }, { "cite": "656 S.E.2d 709", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640373 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "715" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/656/0709-01" ] }, { "cite": "663 S.E.2d 432", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12641528, 12641526, 12641527 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/663/0432-03", "/se2d/663/0432-01", "/se2d/663/0432-02" ] }, { "cite": "362 N.C. 367", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12641220, 12641526, 12641527, 12641528, 12641594 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/661/0889-01", "/se2d/663/0432-01", "/se2d/663/0432-02", "/se2d/663/0432-03", "/se2d/664/0315-03" ] }, { "cite": "654 S.E.2d 28", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640031 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "31", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Gregory, 223 N.C. 415, 418, 27 S.E.2d 140, 142 (1943)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/654/0028-01" ] }, { "cite": "531 U.S. 1018", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9679042, 9678662, 9678761, 9678795, 9678864, 9678834, 9678739, 9678962, 9678903, 9678645, 9678999, 9678940, 9678686, 9678719 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/531/1018-14", "/us/531/1018-02", "/us/531/1018-06", "/us/531/1018-07", "/us/531/1018-09", "/us/531/1018-08", "/us/531/1018-05", "/us/531/1018-12", "/us/531/1018-10", "/us/531/1018-01", "/us/531/1018-13", "/us/531/1018-11", "/us/531/1018-03", "/us/531/1018-04" ] }, { "cite": "636 S.E.2d 277", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636994 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "280" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/636/0277-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(2)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3787934 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "590", "parenthetical": "citations and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "590" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0588-01" ] }, { "cite": "720 S.E.2d 437", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "439" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 S.E.2d 673", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "675" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 N.C. App. 666", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12169132 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "667" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/84/0666-01" ] }, { "cite": "689 S.E.2d 517", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "524", "parenthetical": "quoting Harris v. Pembaur, 84 N.C. App. 666, 667, 353 S.E.2d 673, 675 (1987)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N.C. App. 270", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4173562 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "281", "parenthetical": "quoting Harris v. Pembaur, 84 N.C. App. 666, 667, 353 S.E.2d 673, 675 (1987)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/201/0270-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 N.C. App. 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4161815 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "652" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/193/0644-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 S.E.2d 418", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "420" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "266 N.C. 528", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561409 ], "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "531" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/266/0528-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 N.C. App. 744", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4155277 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "752" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/188/0744-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 S.E.2d 140", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1943, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "142" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610537 ], "year": 1943, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "418" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0415-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 N.C. App. 718", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8375867 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "722", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Gregory, 223 N.C. 415, 418, 27 S.E.2d 140, 142 (1943)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/187/0718-01" ] }, { "cite": "683 S.E.2d 215", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 2009, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "675 S.E.2d 406", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "409" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N.C. App. 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4166258 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "652" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/196/0650-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 L.Ed. 2d 498", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "528 S.E.2d 326", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "341" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155877 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "503" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0481-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 S.E.2d 15", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "17-18" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 N.C. 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558861 ], "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "215" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/267/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "423 S.E.2d 496", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "497", "parenthetical": "quoting McClure v. State, 267 N.C. 212, 215, 148 S.E.2d 15, 17-18 (1966)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N.C. App. 330", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524137 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "332", "parenthetical": "quoting McClure v. State, 267 N.C. 212, 215, 148 S.E.2d 15, 17-18 (1966)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/108/0330-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 S.E.2d 917", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "920" }, { "page": "920" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "238 N.C. 325", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607564 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "328" }, { "page": "328" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/238/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 N.C. App. 151", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8239959 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "153" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/180/0151-01" ] }, { "cite": "459 S.E.2d 510", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "512", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 N.C. 173", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 793125 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "176", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/341/0173-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 S.E.2d 861", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "864" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "248 N.C. 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624346 ], "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "451" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/248/0447-01" ] }, { "cite": "714 S.E.2d 201", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "206", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Courtney, 248 N.C. 447, 451, 103 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1958)" }, { "page": "206" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 31, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(2)" }, { "page": "(a)(2) and (3)" }, { "page": "(a)(2)" }, { "page": "(a)(2)" }, { "page": "(a)(2)" }, { "page": "*4" }, { "page": "*4-5", "parenthetical": "emphasis omitted" }, { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "*8-9" }, { "page": "*9-10" }, { "page": "*12" }, { "page": "*15", "parenthetical": "emphasis omitted" }, { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "*15-16", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "*16-17" }, { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a)(1)" }, { "page": "(a)(2)" }, { "page": "(a)(1)" }, { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(c)" }, { "page": "*12" }, { "page": "(c)" }, { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 705, "char_count": 16527, "ocr_confidence": 0.757, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.437414629105072e-08, "percentile": 0.48448693340808674 }, "sha256": "511d08827ddfc223af08db3380cb946c65b5d34e6bd9f25161acfcfaf2171d9e", "simhash": "1:cdcbc620d2b82e76", "word_count": 2739 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:11.101860+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUNTER, Robert C. and ERVIN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TRACY SCOTT HERMAN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STROUD, Judge.\nThis matter is before this Court on the State\u2019s appeal from a trial court\u2019s order allowing Tracy Scott Herman\u2019s (\u201cdefendant\u201d) motion to have certain portions of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18 declared unconstitutional. As the indictment charging defendant was insufficient, we do not have subject matter jurisdiction and dismiss the State\u2019s appeal.\nI. Background\nOn 3 January 2011, defendant was indicted for one count of being a sex offender on unlawful premises, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18(a)(2). On 16 August 2011, defendant filed a motion requesting that the trial court find N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18(a)(2) and (3) unconstitutional, arguing that these portions of this statute (1) violated defendant\u2019s First Amendment right to freedom of association because they are \u201cunconstitutionally overbroad[;]\u201d (2) are unconstitutionally so vague as to not \u201cgive notice to a reasonable citizen of whether his conduct is illegal\u201d and to encourage \u201claw enforcement to enforce the law in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner[;]\u201d and (3) violated defendant\u2019s First Amendment and State constitutional rights to free exercise of religion and association. Defendant\u2019s motion came on for hearing and by order entered 31 August 2011, the trial court, after making findings of fact and conclusions of law, declared N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18(a)(2) \u201cunconstitutional^\u201d and dismissed the pending charges against defendant. On 17 August 2011, the State filed written notice of appeal from the trial court\u2019s order. On appeal, the State argues that (1) the trial court erred in determining the constitutionality of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18(a)(2) because defendant did not have standing to challenge this statute; and (2) the trial court erred in finding N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18(a)(2) unconstitutional. Based on our recent holding in State v. Harris, _N.C. App. _, _S.E.2d _, 2012 N.C. App. LEXIS 444 (N.C. Ct. App. April 3, 2012) (COA11-1031), the record before us presents a preliminary jurisdictional issue.\nII. Jurisdictional issue\nIn Harris, the defendant argued on appeal that \u201cthe trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the indictment purporting to charge him with violating N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18[(a)(l)] failed to allege all the essential elements of the offense defined in that statutory provision.\u201d Id. at *4. Specifically, the defendant argued that the indictment was insufficient because it failed to allege that (1) the defendant was on the school premises; (2) the defendant was knowingly on the school\u2019s premises; or (3) the defend-ant had been \u201cconvicted of an offense under Article 7A of Chapter 14 of the North Carolina General Statutes or an offense involving a minor child.\u201d Id. at *4-5 (emphasis omitted). In explaining the relevant law, this Court stated\nAccording to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-924(a)(5) an indictment must contain:\nA plain and concise factual statement in each count which, without allegations of an evidentiary nature, asserts facts supporting every element of a criminal offense and the defendant\u2019s commission thereof with sufficient precision clearly to apprise the defend-ant or defendants of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation.\n\u201cAs a \u2018[prerequisite to its validity, an indictment must allege every essential element of the criminal offense it purports to charge,\u2019 \u201d State v. Billinger, N.C. App. , , 714 S.E.2d 201, 206 (2011) (quoting State v. Courtney, 248 N.C. 447, 451, 103 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1958)), although it \u201cneed only allege the ultimate facts constituting each element of the criminal offense.\u201d State v. Rambert, 341 N.C. 173, 176[,] 459 S.E.2d 510, 512 (1995) (citation omitted). \u201cOur courts have recognized that[,] while an indictment should give a defendant sufficient notice of the charges against him, it should not be subjected to hyper technical scrutiny with respect to form.\u201d In re S.R.S., 180 N.C. App. 151, 153, 636 S.E.2d 277, 280 (2006). \u201cThe general rule in this State and elsewhere is that an indictment for a statutory offense is sufficient, if the offense is charged in the words of the statute, either literally or substantially, or in equivalent words.\u201d State v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325, 328, 77 S.E.2d 917, 920 (1953).\n\u201cNorth Carolina law has long provided that \u2018[t]here can be no trial, conviction, or punishment for a crime without a formal and sufficient accusation. In the absence of an accusation the court acquires no jurisdiction whatever, and if it assumes jurisdiction a trial and conviction are a nullity.\u2019 \u201d State v. Neville, 108 N.C. App. 330, 332, 423 S.E.2d 496, 497 (1992) (quoting McClure v. State, 267 N.C. 212, 215, 148 S.E.2d 15, 17-18 (1966)). \u201c[W]here an indictment is alleged to be invalid on its face, thereby depriving the trial court of [subject matter] jurisdiction, a challenge to that indictment may be made at any time, even if it was not contested in the trial court.\u201d State v. Wallace, 351 N.C. 481, 503, 528 S.E.2d 326, 341, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1018, 148 L.Ed. 2d 498 (2000). This Court \u201creview[s] the sufficiency of an indictment de novo.\u201d State v. McKoy, 196 N.C. App. 650, 652, 675 S.E.2d 406, 409, appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 363 N.C. 586, 683 S.E.2d 215 (2009). \u201cAn arrest of judgment is proper when the indictment \u2018wholly fails to charge some offense cognizable at law or fails to state some essential and necessary element of the offense of which the defendant is found guilty.\u2019 \u201d State v. Kelso, 187 N.C. App. 718, 722, 654 S.E.2d 28, 31 (2007) (quoting State v. Gregory, 223 N.C. 415, 418, 27 S.E.2d 140, 142 (1943)), disc. review denied, 362 N.C. 367, 663 S.E.2d 432 (2008). \u201c \u2018The legal effect of arresting the judgment is to vacate the verdict and sentence of imprisonment below, and the State, if it is so advised, may proceed against the defendant upon a sufficient bill of indictment.\u2019 \u201d State v. Marshall, 188 N.C. App. 744, 752, 656 S.E.2d 709, 715 (quoting State v. Fowler, 266 N.C. 528, 531, 146 S.E.2d 418, 420 (1966)), disc. review denied, 362 N.C. 368, 661 S.E.2d 890 (2008).\nId. at *5-7. The indictment in Harris stated the following:\nTHE JURORS FOR THE STATE UPON THEIR OATH PRESENT that on or about the 14th day of January, 2010, in Mecklenburg County, Charles Fitzgerald Harris did unlawfully, willfully and feloniously on the premises of Winget Park Elementary School, located at. . . Charlotte, North Carolina. A place intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors and defendant is a registered sex offender.\nId. at *7-8 (emphasis omitted). After looking at the relevant portions of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18, this Court determined that\nthe essential elements of the offense defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18(a) are that the defendant was (1) knowingly on the premises of any place intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors and (2) at a time when he or she was required by North Carolina law to register as a sex offender based upon a conviction for committing an offense enumerated in Article 7A of Chapter 14 of the North Carolina General Statutes or an offense involving a victim who was under the age of 16 at the time of the offense. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18.\nId. at *8-9. This Court first overruled the defendant\u2019s argument that the indictment failed to clearly allege that he went onto the school premises as the indictment stated that defendant was being charged with being \u201con the premises[.]\u201d Id. at *9-10. This Court also overruled the defendant\u2019s second argument that the indictment was invalid because it did not contain the word \u201cknowingly\u201d as the indictment alleged that defendant acted \u201cwillfully\u201d which was sufficient \u201cto allege the requisite \u2018knowing\u2019 conduct.\u201d Id. at *12. In addressing the defendant\u2019s third argument, the Court, after looking to the relevant statutes, determined that because\ncertain individuals are required to register as sex offenders despite the fact that they did not commit an offense that is listed in Article 7A of Chapter 14 or involved a victim under the age of 16, an allegation that Defendant was a \u2018registered sex offender\u2019 does not suffice to allege all of the elements of the criminal offense enumerated in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18.\nId. at *15 (emphasis omitted). The Court vacated the defendant\u2019s convictions after concluding that the indictment failed to \u201callege every essential element of the criminal offense it purports to charge,\u201d and therefore, the trial court was deprived of jurisdiction to enter a judgment against defendant for an alleged violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18(a). Id. at *15-16 (citation omitted). The Court went on to address the State\u2019s arguments \u201cthat the \u2018specific offense committed would be mere surplusage\u2019 and that the allegation that Defendant\u2019s conduct was \u2018unlawful\u2019 gave him ample notice that his status as a registered sex offender precluded him from entering the premises of the school in question.\u201d Id. at *16-17. In concluding that \u201cneither of the State\u2019s justifications for upholding the challenged \u2018prior offense\u2019 allegation have merit[,]\u201d this Court explained that\n[a]n allegation that the underlying offense requiring sex offender registration was an offense listed in Article 7A of Chapter 14 of the North Carolina General Statutes or involved a victim under the age of 16 is an essential element for purposes of the offense set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18(a) and cannot, for that reason, be treated as mere surplusage. In addition, we do not believe an allegation that Defendant\u2019s conduct was \u201cunlawful\u201d satisfies the requirement that the indictment allege every essential element of an offense under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18(a). Billinger, _N.C. App. at _, 714 S.E.2d at 206. Alleging that Defendant was a \u201cregistered sex offender\u201d and that his conduct was \u201cunlawful\u201d does not, standing alone, provide any notice of the nature of Defendant\u2019s allegedly unlawful conduct or the reason that his alleged conduct was unlawful.\nId. at *16-17.\nUnlike Harris, neither party here has raised an issue on appeal regarding the validity of the indictment and the presence or absence of subject matter jurisdiction. However, \u201can appellate court has the power to inquire into jurisdiction in a case before it at any time, even sua sponte.\u201d Xiong v. Marks, 193 N.C. App. 644, 652, 668 S.E.2d 594, 599 (2008). \u201c \u2018Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of an action is the most critical aspect of the court\u2019s authority to act. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to deal with the kind of action in question.\u2019 \u201d Cunningham v. Selman, 201 N.C. App. 270, 281, 689 S.E.2d 517, 524 (2009) (quoting Harris v. Pembaur, 84 N.C. App. 666, 667, 353 S.E.2d 673, 675 (1987)). Whether a trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law, reviewed de novo on appeal. State v. Abbott, _N.C. App. _, _, 720 S.E.2d 437, 439 (2011). \u201cA universal principle as old as the law is that the proceedings of a court without jurisdiction of the subject matter are a nullity[,]\u201d and \u201cin its absence a court has no power to act[.]\u201d In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588, 590, 636 S.E.2d 787, 790 (2006) (citations and quotation marks omitted).\nThe relevant portions of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18 (2009) state the following:\n(a) It shall be unlawful for any person required to register under this Article, if the offense requiring registration is described in subsection (c) of this section, to knowingly be at any of the following locations:\n(1) On the premises of any place intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors, including, but not limited to, schools, children\u2019s museums, child care centers, nurseries, and playgrounds.\n(2) Within 300 feet of any location intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors when the place is located on premises that are not intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors, including, but not limited to, places described in subdivision (1) of this subsection that ar\u00e9 located in malls, shopping centers, or other property open to the general public.\n(c) Subsection (a) of this section is applicable only to persons required to register under this Article who have committed any of the following offenses:\n(1) Any offense in Article 7A of this Chapter.\n(2) Any offense where the victim of the offense was under the age of 16 years at the time of the offense.\nThe indictment in this case has similar defects as the indictment in Harris. The indictment against defendant stated the following:\nThe jurors for the State upon their oath present that on or about the date of offense shown and in the county named above the defendant named above unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously was knowingly present at and within 300 feet of a location intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors and that place was located on premises that were not intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors, said property being the Catawba County Fairgrounds, located at 1127 Conover Blvd.,' Newton, NC, property which is open to the general public. This act was in violation of the law referenced above.\nWe first note that the defendant in Harris was charged with an offense pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18(a)(1) and defendant here is charged pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18(a)(2). Although those charges would have different first \u201celements\u201d pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18(a)(1) or (2) both indictments charging those offenses would both have to allege that defendants acted with knowledge, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18(a), and, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18(c), would still have to allege that:\nat a time when he or she was required by North Carolina law to register as a sex offender based upon a conviction for committing an offense enumerated in Article 7A of Chapter 14 of the North Carolina General Statutes or an offense involving a victim who was under the age of 16 at the time of the offense.\nHarris, 2012 N.C. App. LEXIS 444 at *8-9 (emphasis omitted).\nLike the Harris indictment, the indictment here states that defendant acted \u201cwillfully[,]\u201d which as determined in Harris satisfies the knowledge requirement. See id. at *12. Also, the indictment generally follows the language of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208(a)(2) in describing the nature of the location of the offense. See Harris, 2012 N.C. App. LEXIS 444 at *6; Greer, 238 N.C. at 328, 77 S.E.2d at 920. But like the indictment in Harris, the indictment before us fails to allege that defendant was convicted of an offense enumerated in Article 7A of Chapter 14 of the North Carolina General Statutes or an offense involving a victim who was under the age of 16 at the time of the offense. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18(c). Also, the use of the word \u201cunlawfully\u201d and the sentence, \u201cThis act was in violation of the law referenced above [,]\u201d in the indictment, just as in the Harris indictment, \u201cdoes not, standing alone, provide any notice of the nature of Defendant\u2019s allegedly unlawful conduct or the reason that his alleged conduct was unlawful.\u201d See Harris, 2012 N.C. App. LEXIS 444 at *17. As the indictment failed to allege this essential element of the offense, the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider a charge against defendant based on N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.18(a) and therefore, the trial court\u2019s order is a \u201cnullity.\u201d See In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. at 590, 636 S.E.2d at 790. Therefore, as the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, we also have \u201cno power to act\u201d on the State\u2019s appeal. See id. Thus, the State\u2019s appeal is dismissed.\nDISMISSED.\nJudges HUNTER, Robert C. and ERVIN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "STROUD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Laura E. Parker, for the State.", "Glenn Gerding, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TRACY SCOTT HERMAN\nNo. COA11-1291\n(Filed 5 June 2012)\nJurisdiction \u2014 subject matter \u2014 sex offender on unlawful premises \u2014 indictment insufficient\nThe State\u2019s appeal from the trial court\u2019s order allowing defendant\u2019s motion to have certain portions of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-208.18 declared unconstitutional was dismissed. The indictment charging defendant with being a sex offender on unlawful premises was insufficient and the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case.\nAppeal by the State from order entered 31 August 2011 by Judge Robert T. Sumner in Superior Court, Catawba County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 April 2012.\nAttorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Laura E. Parker, for the State.\nGlenn Gerding, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0204-01", "first_page_order": 214, "last_page_order": 221 }