Opinion ID: 2791466
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mr. White’s state crime

Text: To apply a categorical approach, we “compare the elements of the statute forming the basis of the defendant’s conviction with the elements of the [predicate] crime.” Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 2281. Mr. White was convicted of taking indecent liberties with a child in violation of section 14-202.1 of the North Carolina Code. North Carolina defines taking indecent liberties with a child as either (1) willfully taking or attempting “to take any immoral, improper, or indecent liberties with any child of either sex under the age of 16 years for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire,” or (2) willfully committing or attempting “to commit any lewd or lascivious act upon or with the body or any part or member of the body of any child of either sex under the age of 16 -33- years.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.1(a). Because this statute provides alternative ways in which it can be violated, it is divisible. Thus, we review the indictment under the modified categorical approach to ascertain which portion of the statute formed the basis of Mr. White’s conviction. The State of North Carolina indicted Mr. White under the first alternative: for willfully taking and attempting to take immoral, improper, and indecent liberties with a victim under the age of sixteen for the purpose of arousing and gratifying sexual desire. We now compare the elements of the statute as applied to Mr. White with the elements of the federal crimes listed in § 16911(4)(A) and (3)(A) to determine Mr. White’s proper tier classification. North Carolina has condensed “immoral, improper, and indecent liberties” to simply “indecent liberties,” which are defined as “such liberties as the common sense of society would regard as indecent and improper.” State v. Every, 578 S.E.2d 642, 647 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). But “neither a completed sexual act nor an offensive touching of the victim are required to violate the statute.” Id. Indeed, no physical touching is required to violate the statute. State v. Nesbitt, 515 S.E.2d 503, 506 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999); see also State v. McClary, 679 S.E.2d 414, 418 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009) (holding that giving a child a graphic letter for the purpose of soliciting sex violates the statute); State v. McClees, 424 S.E.2d 687, 689–90 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993) (holding that secretly videotaping an undressing child violates the statute). The elements of Mr. White’s state offense therefore include that he: (1) willfully, (2) took or attempted to take indecent liberties, (3) with a minor, (4) for the purpose of arousing and gratifying -34- sexual desire. Of importance here, physical contact is not an element of the North Carolina crime of which Mr. White was convicted.