In re Banks

Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1978 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawConstitutional LawVaguenessOverbreadthStatutory InterpretationG.S. 14-202Peeping Tom statutevoid for vagueness

Facts

The challenged statute made it a misdemeanor for any person to 'peep secretly into any room occupied by a female person.' Respondent argued the statute was unconstitutional because its literal language could cover innocent conduct and because its intended scope was indefinite. The court examined the statutory language together with prior North Carolina decisions construing the statute. Those prior decisions treated the statute as addressing conduct commonly understood as 'Peeping Tom' behavior.

Issue

Whether G.S. 14-202, which criminalizes secretly peeping into a room occupied by a female person, is unconstitutional because it is impermissibly vague or overbroad. More specifically, the question was whether the statute gives fair notice and avoids sweeping in legitimate conduct once properly construed.

Rule

A criminal statute is sufficiently definite if, as reasonably construed and informed by prior judicial interpretation, it gives a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of the prohibited conduct and provides a reasonably ascertainable standard of guilt. Where a literal reading would defeat the statute's manifest purpose, courts may adopt a narrowing construction consistent with legislative intent; under G.S. 14-202, 'secretly' imports wrongful spying with intent to invade the female occupant's legitimate expectation of privacy, which also limits the statute against overbreadth.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Raleigh, Devin Cole is charged under a state statute making it a misdemeanor to "secretly peep into any room occupied by a female person." Devin argues the statute is facially void because, read literally, it could cover a passerby who merely looks through a picture window while walking his dog.

How should a court most likely rule on Devin's vagueness challenge under the controlling doctrine?

Explanation. The majority held that a statute is not tested in a vacuum. Looking to common understanding, statutory purpose, and prior judicial interpretations, the court adopted a narrowing construction: "secretly" means wrongful spying with intent to invade the female occupant's privacy. That construction gives a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice and provides a reasonably ascertainable standard of guilt, so the statute is not unconstitutionally vague merely because a literal reading might sweep more broadly.