{
  "id": 12170318,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE TURMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Turman",
  "decision_date": "1981-06-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 8112SC33",
  "first_page": "376",
  "last_page": "377",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 N.C. App. 376"
    }
  ],
  "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": "142 S.E. 2d 691",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 N.C. 746",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575136
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/264/0746-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 N.C. 740",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8576264,
        8576273,
        8576288,
        8576304
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/299/0740-01",
        "/nc/299/0740-02",
        "/nc/299/0740-03",
        "/nc/299/0740-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 S.E. 2d 501",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 N.C. App. 547",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554277
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/44/0547-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 S.E. 2d 661",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 N.C. 157",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564177
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/302/0157-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 3397,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.835,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.83890908514552e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8991298334381657
    },
    "sha256": "465011792c34eb292884d431e1b366888ac080bbeab4778ee8f39ca12e8e14d5",
    "simhash": "1:2b9af5c0d0e793c6",
    "word_count": 547
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:28.379499+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Wells concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE TURMAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of violating N.C.G.S. 14-202.1, and now attacks the constitutionality of this statute. He contends the statute is unconstitutional in that (a) it is a denial of due process because of vagueness, (b) it is a denial of equal protection because of age classification in the statute, and (c) it is an overbroad restriction on protected activity. Defendant does not cite any authority in support of his contentions.\nIt is clear that the challenged statute is constitutional. Our Supreme Court has passed upon these identical arguments in State v. Elam, 302 N.C. 157, 273 S.E. 2d 661 (1981). Further elaboration on these points in this opinion would serve no useful purpose. The law as stated in Elam controls this appeal, and the assignments of error directed to the constitutionality of the statute are overruled.\nDefendant contends the court erred in its charge by instructing the jury that masturbation in the presence of another would be an immoral or indecent act within the meaning of the statute. Defendant argues that because the statute uses the words \u201cwith any child,\u201d there must be some touching of the child to constitute an indecent liberty under the statute. We reject the argument and hold that it is not necessary that there be a touching of the child by the defendant in order to constitute an indecent liberty within the meaning of N.C.G.S. 14-202.1. See State v. Turgeon, 44 N.C. App. 547, 261 S.E. 2d 501, disc. rev. denied, 299 N.C. 740 (1980). The purpose of the statute is to give broader protection to children than the prior laws provided. State v. Harward, 264 N.C. 746, 142 S.E. 2d 691 (1965). The word \u201cwith\u201d is not limited to mean only a physical touching. See Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 2626 (1971). We find no prejudicial error in the challenged instruction.\nAccordingly, we hold that the acts allegedly performed by defendant were \u201cimmoral, improper, or indecent liberties\u201d within the meaning of the statute. Therefore, we overrule defendant\u2019s last assignment of error, in which he contends the trial court erred in denying his motions to dismiss for insufficiency of the state\u2019s evidence.\nNo error.\nJudges Hedrick and Wells concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Luden Capone III, for the State.",
      "Assistant Public Defender, Twelfth Judicial District, John G. Britt, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE TURMAN\nNo. 8112SC33\n(Filed 2 June 1981)\n1. Rape \u00a7 19\u2014 taking indecent liberties with child \u2014constitutionality of statute\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that G.S. 14-202.1, the statute prohibiting taking indecent liberties with a child, was unconstitutional in that it denied due process because of vagueness, denied equal protection because of age classification, and was an overbroad restriction on protected activity.\n2. Rape \u00a7 19\u2014 taking indecent liberties with child \u2014 touching of child unnecessary\nIt is not necessary that there be a touching of the child by the defendant in order to constitute an indecent liberty within the meaning of G.S. 14-202.1.\nAppeal by defendant from Preston, Judge. Judgment entered 13 August 1980 in Superior Court, CUMBERLAND County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 May 1981.\nDefendant was convicted of taking indecent liberties with a child. From the judgment of imprisonment, defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Luden Capone III, for the State.\nAssistant Public Defender, Twelfth Judicial District, John G. Britt, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0376-01",
  "first_page_order": 404,
  "last_page_order": 405
}
