Last edited: August 10, 2004
The Sensibilities of Our Forefathers
The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States
By George Painter
© Copyright, George Painter 1991-2002
"This commandment has become famous Biblical lore
in the story of the destruction by fire and brimstone of the cities of
Sodom and Gomorrah where the practice was prevalent."
The Colonial Period, 1607-1776
A charter granted by King Charles II in 16631
permitted the Carolina colonies to enact laws so long as they were
"consonant to reason, and near as may be conveniently, agreeable to the
laws and customs of this our realm of England."2
Even with this authority, no law against sodomy is known to have been enacted
for a half-century. One text noted that "not many of the laws enacted
prior to 1715" have been preserved.3
Whether a sodomy law was included during this time era is unknown.
In 1712, the Carolina colony was divided formally into North Carolina and
In 1715, a law was enacted4 to adopt the
common law of England.5 This made sodomy a
capital offense, applicable only to males.
It was noted in 1746 that, because the early laws of North Carolina were
not printed, "the people transgress many of them through want of knowing
A statute of 17497 adopted only the English
laws that were "apt and good" and which were denominated
specifically.8 This list of adopted statutes
included both the buggery laws of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.9
This law technically maintained sodomy as a male-only and capital offense.
However, the 1749 law was "universally acknowledged to have been repealed
or disallowed by the king in council[.]"10
Period Summary: It is unknown why North Carolina existed for
nearly a half-century without any law against sodomy or without adoption
of English laws. It was not until well into the colonial era that English
common law was adopted by North Carolina, but there are no known death
sentences from the colony. An even later colonial statute adopting all
statutory laws of England was voided by the English government.
The Post-Revolution Period, 1776-1873
In 1778, North Carolina passed another statute11
that again adopted all of the common and statutory law of England that already
had been considered in force.12
A decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court in 1796, Sherrod v.
Davis,13 reinforced that all of the common
law in force in England still was the law in North Carolina.14
The first sodomy statute was enacted in 1836.15
The law outlawed "the abominable and detestable crime against nature, not
to be named among christians, with either man or beast" and provided a
penalty of death, without benefit of clergy.16
This law, at least on its face, eliminated the gender specifics of the English
In 1843, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided, in Crump v. Morgan,17
that the common law of England, as adopted by North Carolina, included canon
law,18 so that religious motivation for
criminal law was allowable in the state.
The law was revised in 1854.19 The two
changes were removal of the gratuitous clause "not to be named among
christians" and elimination of the reference to benefit of clergy.20
In 1856, a guidebook for justices of the peace was published.21
The editor, Edward Cantwell, praised the legal writings of Beccaria (who
advocated decriminalization of sodomy)22 and
the Napoleonic Code (which decriminalized sodomy).23
Although not mentioning sodomy specifically, Cantwell advocated the Napoleonic
Code for North Carolina.24 He dutifully
presented information on the crime of sodomy and the proper evidence for it,25
but made no moralizing statements.
A law of 186126 eliminated the need to prove
The death penalty finally was eliminated in a statute of 1868.27
The penalty was reduced to a still very harsh 20-60 years in prison.28
This statute apparently was considered too harsh because, less than eight
months later, in 1869, the penalty was reduced to 5-60 years.29
Period Summary: After the Revolution, North Carolina again
recognized English common-law crimes and did not enact a sodomy statute
until 1836. When the statute was enacted, the death penalty was retained.
After having waited so long to enact a specific sodomy law, North Carolina
nevertheless revised the law frequently, but did not eliminate the death
penalty until after the Civil War. However, the death sentence was
replaced by a 20-60-year sentence, the harshest in the nation. This lasted
less than a year, the 20-year-minimum being considered too harsh, showing
the diminishing horror of sodomy during Victorian times. Also during this
era, one legal commentator indirectly recommended repeal of consensual
sodomy by recommending adoption of the Napoleonic Code. Unfortunately, the
North Carolina legislature chose not to follow the recommendation.
The Victorian Morality Period, 1873-1948
In 1912, the North Carolina Supreme Court dealt with its first sodomy case
(with a human) in State v. Savage.30 The
court unanimously upheld the right of a jury to return a verdict of attempted
sodomy instead of the completed act.31
In 1914, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in State v. Fenner,32
ruled that fellatio constituted a violation of the law. The Court felt that
the term "crime against nature" was broader than the term
The most famous person to be ensnared by this law was 17-year-old future
political columnist Drew Pearson. In 1915, he and another young male were
arrested in the town of Reidsville, but were acquitted by a jury.34
In the case of State v. Griffin,35 in
1917, the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld another conviction for fellatio.
Griffin claimed that, since he fellated a boy, rather than the other way
around as was the case in Fenner, he had not violated the law. The
Court disagreed, saying that "one method is as much a crime against
nature as the other."36 The crime against
all kindred acts of a bestial character whereby degraded and perverted
sexual desires are sought to be gratified.37
The Court also rejected Griffins claim that no crime occurred because
the boy in the case was prepubertal and, therefore, incapable of an emission.
An argument such as this would allow
such degrading practices to be carried on with impunity with those
whose tender years and inexperience render them ignorant of their evil
effects. The statute aims to protect the young and innocent as well as to
punish the hardened criminal who seduces them into such filthy and
Griffin also raised the novel claim that, because he was 52 years old and
the father of seven children, he could not be guilty of the crime, it being
one committed only by young people. The Court rejected this claim as well, and
regretted the "punishment" of the wife and children by the husband
for his activities. "Their sufferings can not be mitigated."39
In 1937, the Court dealt with the case of State v. Callett.40
The Supreme Court unanimously overturned a sodomy conviction because the
indictment had not specified that Callett committed the act of sodomy feloniously.41
Just a month later, the Court issued a 34-word opinion in State v. May42
upholding a conviction for attempted sodomy as following a sufficient
information. Five of the words were that the record was "barren of any
reversible error,"43 but the opinion is
equally barren of any analysis.
North Carolina enacted a sterilization law in 191944
that covered those in state institutions, including prisons, whose
"moral" condition could be improved by the operation.45
This law was amended in 192946 to include a
provision making the ordering authority for sterilization surgery absolutely
immune from both criminal and civil liability.47
This law was found unconstitutional by the North Carolina Supreme Court in
1933 in Brewer v. Valk.48 The Court
found that the law denied due process by not granting the defendant any notice
or hearing.49 Some 49 operations were performed
in the state under the unconstitutional law.50
The North Carolina legislature responded with a law51
passed quickly in 1933 to grant the hearing and notice rights insisted upon by
the Supreme Court, as well as other safeguards. The law retained the same
language authorizing sterilization of penal institution inmates whose
"moral" condition might be improved.52
In 1935, the law was amended53 removing the
necessity for a pre-sterilization hearing if the person asking for the
sterilization is next-of-kin to the patient.54
Period Summary: It was nearly 40 years into this era that North
Carolina had a published sodomy case (with a human). Nevertheless, the
courts acted quickly in adopting the practices of other states. Just two
years after the first sodomy case, the term "crime against
nature" was interpreted to include fellatio, even though the statutes
wording had not been changed. North Carolina also was one of the first
Southern states to adopt a sterilization law, in 1919. Its law covered
persons with vague, undesirable traits. The original law was struck down
on due process grounds, but quickly was reenacted with various civil
The Kinsey Period, 1948-1986
In 1954, a law review discussed the history of the North Carolina
"crime against nature" law.55 After
reviewing common law, statutory law, and case law,56
a new statute for North Carolina was proposed. Although suggesting that
homosexuality was not the threat to society that many considered it,57
the proposed new law did not exempt consensual relations from prosecution.
Consensual relations would be considered an unspecified misdemeanor and only
married couples would be exempt from prosecution.58
Two cases were disposed of the same day by the North Carolina Supreme Court
in 1956. In State v. Lance,59 the Court
rejected the defendants contention that the enactment of a law to protect
minors from sexual molestation impliedly repealed the sodomy law.60
To do so would
lead to the absurdity of imputing to the legislative body a purpose to
abolish the statute condemning crimes against nature.61
In the curious case of State v. Cannon,62
the Court upheld the right of the trial court to correct errors in the trial
record five years after the fact.63 One aspect
that Cannon never challenged was that the public was excluded from his trial
"because of the nature of the case."64
In another very brief opinion, State v. Ownbey,65
from 1957, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a sodomy conviction, conceding
that the "charge is serious. The punishment is afflictive."66
The next day, the Court disposed of two more cases, both with brief,
undetailed opinions. Both, however, were moralizing. In State v. Pegelow,67
the Court stated that there was "no need to soil the pages of our Reports
with a recital of its sordid details."68
In State v. Williams,69 the Court said
that it "would serve no needful purpose to discuss the unnatural and
depraved conduct to which the evidence relates."70
In 1961, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled, in State v. Whittemore,71
that penetration was essential to commit the act of sodomy.72
In 1962, the Court, deciding State v. King,73
upheld the right of the state to prosecute a person for sodomy under an
The Supreme Court unanimously overturned a sodomy conviction in the 1963
case of State v. Walston.75 The trial
court had required Walston to prove his alibi, rather than require the state
to prove its case against him, a basic violation of the accusatorial system of
justice, and the Court found this to be prejudicial error.76
The fascinating case of Perkins v. North Carolina77
was decided by a federal court in 1964. Release by habeas corpus was
sought by a man who received a sentence of 20-30 years in prison for
consensual sodomy after pleading not guilty and being convicted by a jury,
whereas his partner received only 5-7 years after pleading nolo contendere.
Judge J. Braxton Craven was openly hostile to and sarcastic about the North
Carolina sodomy law and the moralizing that had gone into its statutory and
case law history. First discussing the claim of vagueness, Craven referred to
the term "crime against nature" as a "delightful
euphemism" for the term "buggery."78
Mentioning the 1854 elimination of the term "not to be named among
christians" and the benefit of clergy from the sodomy law, Craven said,
"By 1854 Christians had become more articulate and less clergical."79
The fact that the law had not been changed in nearly a century led Craven to
call the inaction "a shocking example of the unfortunate gulf between
criminal law, and medicine and psychiatry."80
Craven then launched into a criticism of the North Carolina Supreme Court for
having "misinterpreted both the statute and the common law" in the Fenner
case by ruling that fellatio was a violation of the law.81
Saying that "[e]uphemisms have no place in criminal law,"82
Craven attacked the North Carolina Supreme Court for having said that
"crime against nature" means
much more than it meant at common law or as an enactment during the
reign of Henry VIII, [and] its decisions have made equally clear that
crime against nature does not embrace walking on the grass.83
Then turning to the issue of cruel and unusual punishment, Craven noted
that imprisoning someone for "homosexual conduct" was akin to
punishing drug addicts.84 It was suggested that
Perkins may have received the longer sentence in revenge for having insisted
upon his right to trial by jury.85 Craven noted
that there was frequently "some frustration for the judge required to
conduct a trial" if the evidence were clear as to guilt,86
but that seems to violate the spirit of the Sixth Amendment and the
presumption of innocence. Craven also felt that Perkins had not received
adequate assistance of counsel.87 He ordered
Perkins released from prison within 60 days, unless North Carolina elected to
retry him.88 Before ending his opinion, Craven
embarked on an essay.
Putting Perkins into the North Carolina prison system is like throwing
Brer Rabbit into the briarpatch. Most doctors who have studied
homosexuality agree that prison environment, including close, continuous,
and exclusive contact with other men, aggravates and strengthens
homosexual tendencies and provides unexcelled opportunity for homosexual
practices. For the confirmed homosexual, imprisonment can accomplish no
rehabilitative function; instead it provides an outlet for the
gratification of sexually-deviate desires. [Footnotes omitted].
After discussing the proposal by the American Law Institute to
decriminalize consensual sodomy, Craven asked
Is it not time to redraft a criminal statute first enacted in 1533? And
if so, cannot the criminal law draftsman be helped by those best informed
on the subjectmedical doctorsin attempting to classify offenders? Is
there any public purpose served by a possible sixty year maximum or even
five year minimum imprisonment of the occasional, or one-time
homosexual without treatment, and if so, what is it? Are homosexuals twice
as dangerous to society as second-degree murderersas indicated by the
maximum punishment for each offense? Is there any good reason why a person
convicted of a single homosexual act with another adult may be imprisoned
six times as long as an abortionist, thirty times as long as one who takes
indecent liberties with children, thirty times as long as the drunk drivereven
though serious personal injury and property damage results, twice as long
as an armed bank robber, three times as long as a train robber, six times
as long as one who feloniously breaks and enters a store, and 730 times as
long as the public drunk?
These questions, and others like them, need to be answered. [Emphasis
is Cravens. Footnotes omitted].89
Although Craven may have been well-meaning with that missive, he made the
terms "sodomy" and "homosexuality" synonymous by it.
In 1964, in the case of State v. OKeefe,90
the North Carolina Supreme Court unanimously held that an indictment stating
that the defendant committed the abominable and detestable crime against
nature with a named male person was sufficient.91
Just a week later, the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld another sodomy
conviction with a brief, moralizing opinion that gave no facts of the case. In
State v. Wright,92 the Court said that
it found it "inappropriate to include herein a recital of the sordid
evidence revealed by the record."93
Federal Judge Cravens plea for a redrafting of the North Carolina sodomy
law met with partial success in 1965. A new sodomy law94
changed the penalty from the 5-60 years that Craven found so objectionable to
a fine or imprisonment "in the discretion of the court."95
The crime was not redefined, and still was classified as a felony.96
Another attempt to claim that the states law against taking liberties
with children impliedly repealed the crime against nature statute was rejected
in 1965 by the Court in State v. Harward.97
In the 1966 case of State v. Stubbs,98
the Court unanimously upheld a sentence of 7-10 years for a consensual act of
sodomy.99 The Court refused to consider the
sentence to be disproportionate to the crime, claiming that it was
constitutional solely because it was within the statutory limits.100
In effect, it was saying that the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the
Eighth Amendment had no meaning. The Court also rejected Stubbs contention
that, if homosexuality were an illness, it could not be punished as a crime.101
The Court found that
the legislative intent and purpose of [the sodomy law] prior to the
1965 amendment and since is to punish persons who undertake by unnatural
and indecent methods to gratify a perverted and depraved sexual instinct
which is an offense against public decency and morality.102
In another 1966 case, State v. Thompson,103
the North Carolina Supreme Court finally found a sentence that it could not
abide. Thompson had been sentenced to 18-20 years for heterosexual sodomy, and
the Court found that, since the 1965 sodomy law did not establish a penalty,
it was controlled by another state law that created a maximum penalty of 10
years for crimes with no penalty prescribed.104
A sentence of 4-6 years for consensual fellatio in a parked car was upheld
unanimously by the Court in the 1967 case of State v. Pugh.105
In 1968, in State v. Stokes,106 the
North Carolina Court of Appeals held that, while it was preferable for an
indictment to specify the name of the victim or co-partner in an act of
sodomy, failure of the indictment to so read was not reversible error.107
This decision was reversed unanimously by the North Carolina Supreme Court.108
For unclear reasons, the Court included a paragraph mixing religious
condemnation and legal history. In
Leviticus 18:22 (King James) there appears this commandment: "Thou
shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
This commandment has become famous Biblical lore in the story of the
destruction by fire and brimstone of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah
where the practice was prevalent. Genesis 19:24-25. From this Biblical
genesis to the present day, the crime of sodomy and the crime against
nature have been condemned by American and English jurisdictions. The
early common law writers called it peccatum illud horribile, inter
christianos non nominandum (that abominable sin, not fit to be
mentioned among Christians). [Emphasis the Courts].109
In the 1971 case of State v. Reep,110
the Court of Appeals upheld a sodomy conviction over the contention of Reep
that he had been incarcerated in jail for some four months before trial, had
been kept in solitary confinement for much of that time, and had been denied
regular shaving, showers, exercise and change of clothing.111
In State v. Moles,112 from 1973, the
Court of Appeals held unanimously that the term "crime against
nature" was not unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.113
In 1975, in State v. Jarrell et al.,114
the Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the right of police to make arrests
for sodomy committed in a public restroom, based upon observation from in the
ceiling. The Court noted that the sexual activity took place, not in an
enclosed stall, but in the public area, thereby being visible to others.115
The Court also rejected an effort by Jarrell to have the sodomy law limited to
acts other than between consenting adults. The Court said only that it was
unaware of any case law allowing people to engage in sodomy in a public
restroom.116 Finally, the Court found no
reversible error in the question of the prosecutor to Jarrells co-defendants
Sunday School teacher, who testified as to his good character. The prosecutor
asked: "Teach him Genesis, about Sodom and Gomorrah?"117
Since the trial judge sustained an objection to the question and instructed
the jury to disregard it, the Court found the point not well taken.118
Also in 1975, the Court of Appeals rejected a constitutional argument
against the sodomy law in State v. Enslin.119
In the 1975 case of State v. Wright,120
the Court of Appeals ruled that penetration was not necessary to complete an
attempt to commit sodomy.121
A 1979 challenge to the constitutionality of the sodomy law was rejected by
the Court of Appeals in State v. Poe.122
First, the Court ruled that consensual heterosexual fellatio constituted an
offense under the statute.123 Second, the
right to privacy was not violated by the statute because the Court felt a
classification discrimination based on marital status was reasonable.124
Third, the Court rejected a vagueness challenge by saying that
persons of ordinary intelligence would conclude a fellatio [sic]
between a man and a woman would be classified as a crime against nature
and forbidden by [the sodomy law]. This keeps it from being
In 1979, a law was adopted to standardize sentencing for crimes.126
The sodomy law was one of many changed by this new statute, and the effect of
it was to change the fine from an unspecified amount to a maximum of $5,000.127
The prison term was not changed.
In 1979, North Carolina also enacted a law128
to outlaw "loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution."
The law included anyone who "[r]epeatedly interferes with the free
passage of other persons" for the purpose of violating either the
prostitution law, or the sodomy law.129
A legislative hearing in 1984 on a proposal to repeal the "crime
against nature" law was attended by hostile religious fundamentalists130
who succeeded in convincing the legislature to leave the felony law intact.
Legislators told reporters that, although they favored repeal, they were
afraid of the right-wing opponents.131
In 1985, in the case of State v. Evans,132
the Court of Appeals unanimously upheld, as neither vague nor discriminatorily
enforced, the 1979 loitering for the purpose of committing the crime against
nature.133 Evans, a woman, claimed that the
law discriminated in favor of Gay men, a claim the Court disputed.134
Despite the broad wording of the law, through 1948 it was used exclusively
for sterilization of the insane, mentally retarded, epileptics, and others
thought to benefit from it. A total of 2,152 sterilizations had occurred by
that date.135 No sterilization occurred to
benefit the "moral" condition of an inmate,136
although a newspaper report revealed a sterilization for rape occurred in
1925,137 showing that the state may have
covered up such sterilizations.
Period Summary: North Carolina was the first state in the nation
to have an in-depth analysis of its sodomy law made in a law journal, in
1954. The author obviously was influenced by the Kinsey studies, but
recommended decriminalizing sodomy only for married couples. North
Carolina courts generally were sympathetic to prosecutors in sodomy cases,
but a federal judge issued a harsh opinion in 1964 that had some effect on
the state. A man had received a long prison term for private, consensual
sodomy and Judge Braxton Craven directed his release on cruel and unusual
punishment grounds, an action that led to a 1965 change in the penalty
from 5-60 years to one with a maximum of ten years and no minimum. Since
that time, the law was held constitutional and interpreted as covering
heterosexuals. Efforts to repeal the law in the 1980s failed because of
the perceived strong opposition of religious fundamentalists in Jesse
Helmss home state. The sterilization law remained and, toward the
beginning of the era, had been used on more than 2,000 people.
The Post-Hardwick Period, 1986-Present
In 1993, the North Carolina legislature killed a bill to repeal the states
sodomy law,138 and instead passed a
comprehensive revision to criminal penalties.139
The new law created a complex system of penalties for crimes. The one for
consensual sodomy was retained as a felony, but reduced to a standard sentence
of three years.140 Judges also have been given
discretion whether or not to impose a jail sentence and jail terms are not,
according to the new law, supposed to be imposed on first offenders convicted
of the lowest level felonies, of which sodomy now is one.141
The state continues to recognize common-law crimes.142
The sterilization law remains on the books.143
The state insists that the sterilization law never was used for the
improvement of "moral" conditions, but was aimed exclusively at
"preventing pregnancy in sexually active female residents of our
Period Summary: North Carolina continues to resist
decriminalization of consensual sodomy. A new sentencing law of 1993 made
it unlikely anyone would receive a jail or prison term for a first
conviction, a three-year penalty remains possible for such an act,
however. Common-law crimes remain recognized, and the sterilization law
remains viable here.
1 Laws of North Carolina, Vol.
I, (Raleigh:J. Gales, 1821), page 1.
2 Id. at 5-6.
3 Paul M. McCain, The County Court
in North Carolina Before 1750, (Durham:Duke University Press,
1954), first page of preface.
4 A Collection of All the Public
Acts of Assembly of the Province of North Carolina: Now in Force and
Use, (Newbern NC:James Davis, 1756), page 38, enacted at the
Little-River session between Nov. 17, 1715 and Jan. 19, 1716.
5 Id. at 39, §VI.
6 The Revised Statutes of the State
of North Carolina, Passed by the General Assembly at the Session of
1836-7, Vol. I, (Raleigh:Turner and Hughes, 1837), page ix.
7 Id. at 293, enacted Oct. 16,
9 Id. at 297 (25 Henry VIII c.
6) and 298 (5 Eliz. c. 17).
10 The Public Acts of the General
Assembly of North Carolina, Vol. I, 1715-1803, (Newbern NC:Martin
& Ogden, 1804), page 37n.
11 Id. at 252, ch. 5, enacted
Apr. 14, 1778.
13 2 N.C. 370, decided during April
14 Id. at 371.
15 The Revised Statutes, supra,
at 192, §6, enacted Dec. 1836.
17 38 N.C. 91, decided Fall Term
18 Id. at 98.
19 Revised Code of North Carolina,
Enacted by the General Assembly at the Session of 1854, (Boston:Little,
Brown and Company, 1855).
20 Id. at 203, §6.
21 Edward Cantwell, ed., Swaims
JusticeRevised. The North Carolina Magistrate, (Raleigh:Henry
D. Turner, 1856).
22 Id. at 225, §544.
23 Id. at 227, §547.
24 Id. §548.
25 Id. at 233-234, §560 and
26 North Carolina Public and
Private Laws 1861, page 61, ch. 30, enacted Feb. 22, 1861.
27 North Carolina Public and
Private Laws 1868, page 60, ch. 44, enacted Aug. 22, 1868.
28 Id. §4.
29 North Carolina Public and
Private Laws 1869, page 406, ch. CLXVII, §6, enacted Apr. 10,
30 76 S.E. 238, decided Nov. 13,
32 80 S.E. 970, decided Feb. 25,
34 Jack Anderson, Confessions of a
Muckraker, (New York:Random House, 1979), page 218.
35 94 S.E. 678, decided Dec. 23,
36 Id. at 679.
39 Id. at 679-680.
40 191 S.E. 27, decided Apr. 28,
41 Id. at 28.
42 190 S.E. 343, decided May 19,
43 Id. at 344.
44 Public Laws of North Carolina
1919, page 504, ch. 281, enacted Mar. 11, 1919.
45 Id. §1.
46 Public Laws of North Carolina
1929, page 28, ch. 34, enacted Feb. 18, 1929.
47 Id. at 29, §5.
48 167 S.E. 638, decided Feb. 8,
49 Id. at 640-641.
50 Moya Woodside, Sterilization in
North Carolina: A Sociological and Psychological Study, (Chapel
Hill:University of North Carolina Press, 1950), page 9.
51 Public Laws of North Carolina
1933, page 345, ch. 224, enacted Apr. 5, 1933.
52 Id. §1.
53 Public Laws of North Carolina
1935, page 806, ch. 463, enacted May 11, 1935.
54 Id. at 808, §6.
55 James R. Spence, "The Law of
the Crime Against Nature," 32 N.Car.L.Rev. 312 (Jan. 1954).
56 Id. at 312-320.
57 Id. at 322.
58 Id. at 324, §5. This
proposal was praised, for some reason, by a reviewer in the Mattachine
Review of March 1955, pages 8-10. One would think that a proposal
for decriminalization would be praised, rather than one merely for
reducing the penalty from a felony to a misdemeanor.
59 94 S.E.2d 335, decided Sep. 19,
60 Id. at 337.
61 Id. at 338.
62 94 S.E.2d 339, decided Sep. 19,
63 Id. at 342.
64 Id. at 340.
65 100 S.E.2d 505, decided Nov. 26,
66 Id. at 506.
67 100 S.E.2d 499, decided Nov. 27,
68 Id. at 500.
69 100 S.E.2d 500, decided Nov. 27,
70 Id. at 501.
71 122 S.E.2d 396, decided Nov. 8,
72 Id. at 398.
73 123 S.E.2d 486, decided Jan. 12,
74 Id. at 488. Kings case
returned to the Court a year later. State v. King, 128 S.E.2d
888, decided Jan. 11, 1963.
75 130 S.E.2d 636, decided May 1,
76 Id. at 637.
77 234 F.Supp. 333, decided Oct. 5,
78 Id. at 335.
82 Id. at 336.
84 Id. at 336-337.
87 Id. at 338-339.
88 Id. at 339.
89 Id. at 340.
90 138 S.E.2d 767, decided Nov. 25,
1964. Cert. denied, 380 U.S. 985, decided Apr. 26, 1965.
91 138 S.E.2d, at 768.
92 139 S.E.2d 10, decided Dec. 2,
94 Public Laws of North Carolina
1965, page 676, ch. 621, enacted May 19, 1965.
95 Id. §4.
97 142 S.E.2d 691, decided June 18,
98 145 S.E.2d 899, decided Jan. 14,
99 Id. at 901-902.
100 Id. at 902.
103 150 S.E.2d 781, decided Nov. 2,
104 Id. at 782. Thompson took
his case to federal court, unsuccessfully seeking habeas corpus
release. Thompson v. Turner, 275 F.Supp. 65, decided Aug. 28,
105 156 S.E.2d 561, decided Sep. 20,
106 161 S.E.2d 53, decided May 15,
107 Id. at 54.
108 163 S.E.2d 771, decided Oct. 30,
109 Id. at 774.
110 182 S.E.2d 623, decided Aug. 4,
111 Id. at 624.
112 195 S.E.2d 352, decided Mar. 28,
113 Id.at 353.
114 211 S.E.2d 837, decided Feb. 19,
1975. Cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 213 S.E.2d 724, decided Apr.
115 211 S.E.2d, at 839.
116 Id. at 840.
118 Id. at 840-841.
119 214 S.E.2d 318, decided May 7,
1975. Cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 217 S.E.2d 669, decided
Aug. 25, 1975. Cert. denied, 425 U.S. 903, decided Mar. 29, 1976.
Rehearing denied, 425 U.S. 985, decided May 19, 1976. A later federal
appeal of Enslins is found, unpublished, at 565 F.2d 156, decided
Nov. 1, 1977.
120 218 S.E.2d 511, decided Oct. 15,
1975. Cert. denied, 220 S.E.2d 622, decided Dec. 17, 1975.
121 218 S.E.2d, at 513.
122 252 S.E.2d 843, decided Mar. 20,
1979. Cert. denied, 259 S.E.2d 304, decided Sep. 25, 1979. Appeal
dismissed, 445 U.S. 947, decided Mar. 31, 1980. Justices Brennan and
Stevens voted to hear the case.
123 252 S.E.2d, at 844.
124 Id. at 844-845.
125 Id. at 845.
126 Public Laws of North Carolina
1979, ch. 760, enacted June 4, 1979, effective July 1,
127 Id. at 866, §14-177.
128 Public Laws of North Carolina
1979, ch. 873, enacted June 8, 1979.
129 Id. North Carolina
General Statutes §14-204.1(b)(3).
130 Washington Blade, Oct.
19, 1984, page 10.
131 Washington Blade, Mar. 8,
1985, page 8.
132 326 S.E.2d 303, decided Mar. 5,
133 Id. at 306.
134 Id. at 308.
135 Woodside, at 194.
136 Id. at 13.
137 Columbus Dispatch, June
24, 1993, 7A:1; Feb. 5, 1994, 1A:1.
138 Lesbian/Gay Law Notes,
May 1993, 41:1.
139 Public Laws of North Carolina
1993, page 1411, ch. 539, enacted July 24, 1993, effective
Jan. 1, 1995.
140 Id. at 1726, §14-177.
141 Lesbian/Gay Law Notes,
November 1994, 132:1.
142 General Statutes of North
143 General Statutes of North
Carolina, §35-36, et seq.
144 Correspondence from Developmental Disabilities Section, Apr. 25, 1996.
Carolina] [History] [Sensibility of Our Forefathers]