mens rea requirement in North Carolina

2021Id. at 726–27.

2021In his partial concurrence, Justice Alito acknowledged this interaction between criminal scienter requirements and First Amendment protections, noting the argument that defining a threats statute in a manner “not limited to threats made with the intent to harm[ ] will chill statements that do not qualify as true threats, e.g., statements that may be literally threatening but are plainly not meant to be taken seriously.” Elonis, 575 U.S. at 748 (Alito, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).

2005Thus, due to the clear legislative intent and the rule of law that “due process does not require every regulatory provision to contain a state-of-mind element,” Meads v. North Carolina Dep’t of Agric., 349 N.C. 656, 673-74 , 509 S.E.2d 165, 176-77 (1998) (citations *563 omitted), no showing of knowledge or intent is necessary to establish a violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-208.11.

2005Thus, due to the clear legislative intent and the rule of law that “due process does not require every regulatory provision to contain a state-of-mind element,” Meads v. North Carolina Dep’t of Agric., 349 N.C. 656, 673-74 , 509 S.E.2d 165, 176-77 (1998) (citations *563 omitted), no showing of knowledge or intent is necessary to establish a violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-208.11.

2026In doing so, the General Assembly “re-introduced intent-based language into the provision, effectively reviving the original mens rea requirement that had first been removed by the 1997 amendment and had rendered a violation of the statute a strict[-]liability offense.” State v. Fox, 216 N.C.

2007This heightened mens rea requirement comports with the additional burden placed on the State, best stated in State v. Rhinehart, 209 N.C. 150, 154, 183 S.E. 388, 391 (1935): "In prosecutions for perjury, it is required that the falsity of the oath be established by two witnesses, or by one witness and adminicular circumstances sufficient to turn the scales against the defendant's oath." These unique safeguards are necessary "[b]ecause of the special nature of a perjury charge, pitting as it does the oath of one person against that of another." 60A Am.Jur.2d Perjury § 74 (2006).

2007This heightened mens rea requirement comports with the additional burden placed on the State, best stated in State v. Rhinehart, 209 N.C. 150, 154, 183 S.E. 388, 391 (1935): "In prosecutions for perjury, it is required that the falsity of the oath be established by two witnesses, or by one witness and adminicular circumstances sufficient to turn the scales against the defendant's oath." These unique safeguards are necessary "[b]ecause of the special nature of a perjury charge, pitting as it does the oath of one person against that of another." 60A Am.Jur.2d Perjury § 74 (2006).

1999NOTES [1] Under State v. Eason, 242 N.C. 59, 65 , 86 S.E.2d 774, 778 (1955), a driver charged with assault with a deadly weapon must have a mens rea requirement of at least culpable negligence to be lawfully convicted of that crime.

1999NOTES [1] Under State v. Eason, 242 N.C. 59, 65 , 86 S.E.2d 774, 778 (1955), a driver charged with assault with a deadly weapon must have a mens rea requirement of at least culpable negligence to be lawfully convicted of that crime.

1998First, it points out that North Carolina Courts have recognized that deference is owed to an agency’s interpretation of a statute, see MacPherson v. City of Asheville, 283 N.C. 299, 307 , 196 S.E.2d 200, 206 (1973), and that the Dental Board has determined that it is in the public interest that knowledge need not be shown before a dentist is disciplined under section 90-41(a)(13).

1998First, it points out that North Carolina Courts have recognized that deference is owed to an agency’s interpretation of a statute, see MacPherson v. City of Asheville, 283 N.C. 299, 307 , 196 S.E.2d 200, 206 (1973), and that the Dental Board has determined that it is in the public interest that knowledge need not be shown before a dentist is disciplined under section 90-41(a)(13).