Case Name: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EUGENE ENSLIN
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1975-05-07
Citations: 25 N.C. App. 662
Docket Number: No. 754SC90
Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EUGENE ENSLIN
Judges: Judges Hedrick and Martin concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 662–663

Head Matter:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EUGENE ENSLIN
No. 754SC90
(Filed 7 May 1975)
Crime Against Nature § 1— constitutionality of statute
G.S. 14-177 which provides that the crime against nature is a felony is constitutional.
Appeal by defendant from Webb, Judge. Judgment entered 26- September 1974 in Superior Court, Onslow County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 April 1975.
By bill of indictment proper, in form defendant was charged with committing “ . . . the abominable and detestable crime against nature with Herbert P. Morgan, a male person . ”
Before pleading, defendant moved to quash the indictment and for a dismissal of the prosecution on the ground that the indictment is unconstitutional.
The court reserved its ruling on the motion to quash but later overruled it. Defendant pleaded not guilty, a jury found him guilty as charged, and from judgment imposing prison sentence of one year, defendant appealed.
Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Edwin M. Speas, Jr., for the State.
Smith, Carrington, Patterson, Follín & Curtis, by Norman B. Smith, and Marilyn G. Haft (by brief), for defendant oppel-lant.

Opinion:
BRITT, Judge.
By his sole assignment of error, defendant contends the court erred in denying his motions to quash the indictment, dismiss the action, and for nonsuit on the ground that the statute under which he was indicted, G.S. 14-177, is unconstitutional, in that it violates the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. We find no merit in the assignment.
In State v. Crouse, 22 N.C. App. 47, 205 S.E. 2d 361 (1974), and State v. Moles, 17 N.C. App. 664, 195 S.E. 2d 352 (1973), this court upheld the constitutionality of G.S. 14-177. We reaffirm- our rulings in these cases and again hold that the subject statute is constitutional.
No error.
Judges Hedrick and Martin concur.