Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): find that there occurred sexual conduct” constituting the single crime of engaging in a sexual act with a child. See Hartness, 326 N.C. at 565, 391 S.E.2d at 179. We note that our Supreme Court’s determination that first-degree sexual offense is a single wrong for unanimity purposes requires us to conclude that charging a defendant with a separate count of first-degree sexual offense for each alternative sexual act performed in a single transaction would result in a multiplicious indictment. If the defendant engages in alternative sexual acts in separate transactions, however, each separate transaction may properly form the basis for charging the defendant with a separate count of first-degree sexual offense. Compare State v. Smith, 323 N.C. 439, 444, 373 S.E.2d 435, 438 (1988) (<HOLDING>) and State v. Dilldine, 22 N.C. App. 229, 231, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the state may charge a defendant with only one count of disseminating obscenity for each separate transaction even though several obscene magazines were disseminated during each transaction (B) recognizing step transaction doctrine whereby courts must consider all steps of transaction in light of entire transaction so that substance of transaction will control over form of each step (C) holding that each incident of discrimination and each retaliatory adverse employment decision constitutes a separate actionable unlawful employment practice  for which an administrative charge must be filed (D) holding that a single transaction involving multiple obscene materials constitutes but one offense (E) holding that sale of two obscene magazines to one detective in one transaction and sale of two obscene films to another detective in another transaction could result in only one conviction for each separate transaction
Output (English): holding that a single transaction involving multiple obscene materials constitutes but one offense