State v. Fredell
Decision Date | 11 April 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 30,30 |
Citation | 195 S.E.2d 300,283 N.C. 242 |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Billie Joyce FREDELL. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan and Asst. Atty. Gen. Charles M. Hensey, for the State.
Wallace C. Harrelson, Public Defender, and Vaiden P. Kendrick, Asst. Public Defender, for defendant-appellant.
The sole question presented by this appeal is: Did the trial court err in denying defendant's motion to quash the warrant on the ground that the statute under which the defendant is charged is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite?
A motion to quash may challenge the constitutionality of the statute. State v. Vestal, 281 N.C. 517, 189 S.E.2d 152 (1972); State v. Brewer, 258 N.C. 533, 129 S.E.2d 262 (1962); State v. Glidden Co., 228 N.C. 664, 46 S.E.2d 860 (1948).
Defendant was charged with a violation of G.S. § 14--318.2(a), which provides:
'Any parent of a child less than 16 years of age or any other person providing care to or supervision of such child, who inflicts physical injury, or who allows physical injury to be inflicted, or who creates or allows to be created a substantial risk of physical injury, upon or to such child by other than accidental means is guilty of the misdemeanor of child abuse.'
This statute provides for three separate offenses: If the parent by other than accidental means (1) inflicts physical injury upon the child, (2) allows physical injury to be inflicted upon the child, or (3) creates or allows to be created a substantial risk of physical injury.
Defendant was only tried for actually inflicting injuries upon her child. The jury was fully instructed that if they failed to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant inflicted the injuries, they should find defendant not guilty.
Defendant does not attack the constitutionality of that part of G.S. § 14--318.2 under which she was tried, but attacks only that portion of the statute which makes it unlawful to create or allow to be created a substantial risk of physical injury. She contends that the phrase 'a substantial risk of physical injury' is so vague, indefinite, and uncertain that she is not adequately apprised of the prohibited conduct and is therefore denied due process of law, contrary to Article I, section 19, of the North Carolina Constitution and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. She further contends that if the term 'substantial risk' is unconstitutionally vague, no part of the statute can stand and that the entire statute is void.
In this connection it is stated in 16 Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law §§ 181--182:
'. . . (I)t is a fundamental principle that a statute may be constitutional in one part and unconstitutional in another and that if the invalid part is severable from the rest, the portion which is constitutional may stand while that which is unconstitutional is stricken out and rejected. . . .
'In line with the rule of severability, the courts will decline to consider the constitutionality of a particular statutory provision where (1) that provision is not necessarily involved in the litigation before the court, and (2) that provision may be severed from the provisions which are necessarily before the court.
G.S. § 14--318.2 was rewritten in its present form by Chapter 710, Session Laws of 1971. As an indication that the General Assembly intended for the different offenses created therein to be independent, divisible and severable, in the same chapter the General Assembly, in defining an abused child, divided the definition to conform to the offenses created by G.S. § 14--318.2, and provided:
"Abused child' means a child less than 16 years of age whose parent or other person responsible for his care:
In State v. Brewer, supra, the defendant was charged with a violation of G.S. § 14--353. That statute was divisible into four parts. The defendant was charged with a violation of the first two parts. Justice Parker (later Chief Justice) stated: 'We are here concerned with the first two parts of G.S. § 14--353, which are divisible and separable from the remainder of the statute.' The Court then proceeded to uphold the constitutionality of those two parts without reference to the other sections of the statute.
In State v. Waddell, 282 N.C. 431, 194 S.E.2d 19 (1973), this Court stated:
Clearly, by the enactment of G.S. § 14--318.2 the General Assembly intended to provide for three separate and independent offenses, none dependent on the other. We hold, therefore, that the first section of G.S. § 14--318.2 is divisible and separable from the remainder of the statute.
Defendant was not tried under that section of the statute which she now attacks as being unconstitutional. For that reason, she is not in position to asert the invalidity of that portion.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership v. Town of Landis
...it was not raised by a party at any time during these proceedings. (Pl.'s Resp. to Jurisdictional Questions 10 (quoting State v. Fredell, 283 N.C. 242, 247, 195 S.E.2d 300, 303 (1973) ("Before deciding an act unconstitutional the question must be presented squarely by a party whose rights a......
-
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. N.C. Farm Bureau Fed'n
......., Intervenor/Defendant-Appellant, and ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH STEIN, Attorney General of the State of North Carolina; KEVIN GUSKIEWICZ, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the University of ...Start with (b)(1) and (2). North Carolina offers they protect private. . 30 . . property against trespass. As a rule, however,. "trespassory interests" ... "retain[ ] its effectiveness." Brockett ,. 472 U.S. at 507; State v. Fredell , 195 S.E.2d 300,. 303 (N.C. 1973) (holding a statute divisible even though it. did not ......
-
Doe v. Cooper
...and the remaining portions would still be operative and fulfill their purpose in the absence of the severed portions. State v. Fredell , 283 N.C. 242, 245, 195 S.E.2d 300, 302 (1973). The law enacting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14–208.18 included a severability clause which stated the following: “If......
-
APPEAL OF SPRINGMOOR, INC.
...goal and when the remaining portions of the statute are "`sufficient to accomplish their proper purpose.'" State v. Fredell, 283 N.C. 242, 245, 195 S.E.2d 300, 302 (1973) (quoting 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law §§ 181-182 (1964)). However, where the unconstitutional portion of a statute "`......