STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARK W. MARCOPLOS, NANCY KATHERINE
WOODS, PASCAL L. PITTS, LAURA WINBUSH VANDERBECK, JAMES EDWIN
WARREN, and RUTH C. ZALPH
Filed: 5 August 2003
North Carolina’s second-degree trespass statute is constitutional as applied to defendants.
Appeal by defendants from judgments dated 9 August 2001 by
Judge J.B. Allen, Jr. in Superior Court, Wake County.
the Court of Appeals 17 September 2002.
Affirmed by State v.
Marcoplos,154 N.C. App. 581, 572 S.E.2d 820 (2002).
remanded, State v. Marcoplos, 357 N.C. 245, __ S.E.2d __ (June
Panel reconvened to consider constitutional issues by
Order of Chief Judge, North Carolina Court of Appeals, dated 10
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Harriet F. Worley, for the State.
Glenn, Mills & Fisher, P.A., by Stewart W. Fisher and George
Hausen, for defendant-appellants.
Following this Court’s affirmance of defendants’ convictions
of second degree trespass in State v. Marcoplos,154 N.C. App.
581, 572 S.E.2d 820 (2002), defendants appealed by right to the
Supreme Court of North Carolina based upon Judge Greene’s
See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-30(2) (2002).
affirmed our decision without opinion (Per Curiam).
upon noting that “[d]efendants . . . sought review . . . of a
constitutional issue originally presented to but not addressed by
the Court of Appeals,”
our Supreme Court, “decline[d] to
consider this constitutional issue in the first instance” and
“remanded to [this Court] so that this [constitutional] issue may
In essence, defendants contended before our
Supreme Court that the second degree trespassing statute, as
applied to defendants, violated the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution and Article 1 § 14 of the North Carolina
On remand, we can say it no better than the Supreme Court
in an analogous case over 20 years ago, State v. Felmet, 302
N.C. 173, 273 S.E.2d 708 (1981).
Like defendants in this case,
defendant in Felmet contended that North Carolina’s trespass
statute was unconstitutional.
Justice Huskins held that
“[d]efendant’s conduct was not protected under the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution . . . . [n]or were
defendant’s actions protected under Article I, section 14 of the
North Carolina Constitution . . . .”
Felmet, at 178, 273 S.E.2d
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in State v. Felmet, 302
N.C. 173, 273 S.E.2d 708 (1981), we hold that these assignments
of error are without merit in law or fact.
Panel consisting of:
WYNN, MARTIN, McGEE