(a) It shall be unlawful for any person:
(1) To use in telephonic communications any words or language of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious or indecent character, nature or connotation;
(2) To use in telephonic communications any words or language threatening to inflict bodily harm to any person or to that person's child, sibling, spouse, or dependent or physical injury to the property of any person, or for the purpose of extorting money or other things of value from any person;
(3) To telephone another repeatedly, whether or not conversation ensues, for the purpose of abusing, annoying, threatening, terrifying, harassing or embarrassing any person at the called number;
(4) To make a telephone call and fail to hang up or disengage the connection with the intent to disrupt the service of another;
(5) To telephone another and to knowingly make any false statement concerning death, injury, illness, disfigurement, indecent conduct or criminal conduct of the person telephoned or of any member of his family or household with the intent to abuse, annoy, threaten, terrify, harass, or embarrass;
(6) To knowingly permit any telephone under his control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this section.
(b) Any of the above offenses may be deemed to have been committed at either the place at which the telephone call or calls were made or at the place where the telephone call or calls were received. For purposes of this section, the term "telephonic communications" shall include communications made or received by way of a telephone answering machine or recorder, telefacsimile machine, or computer modem.
(c) Anyone violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. (1913, c. 35; 1915, c. 41; C.S., s. 4351; 1967, c. 833, s. 1; 1989, c. 305; 1993, c. 539, s. 128; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1999-262, s. 1; 2000-125, s. 2.)
§§ 14-196.1 through 14-196.2. Repealed by Session Laws 1967, c. 833, s. 3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · leading case:
Radford v. Webb, 446 F. Supp. 608 (W.D.N.C. 1978).
Radford v. Webb, 446 F. Supp. 608 (W.D.N.C. 1978).
· cites it 27× “Petitioner was convicted of a misdemean- or violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-196 in Union County District Court on December 30, 1976, upon a charge that he had used “profane, indecent and threatening language” over a telephone.”
State v. Camp, 295 S.E.2d 766 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 7× “Defendant alleges in his first assignment of error that the warrant charged him with committing acts that did not violate G.S. 14-196(a)(3) which states: It shall be unlawful for any person to telephone another repeatedly, whether or not conversation ensues, for the purpose of…”
State v. Bishop, 774 S.E.2d 337 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “The State contends this statute is analogous to the North Carolina Harassing Telephone Calls statute, which criminalizes making repeated telephone calls "for the purpose of abusing, annoying, threatening, terrifying, harassing or embarrassing any person at the called number[.”
In Re Simmons, 210 S.E.2d 84 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 4× “At the hearing before the District Judge respondent’s counsel by timely motions attacked the constitutionality of G.S. 14-196 (a) (1) on the grounds that the statute is vague and over- *30 broad and violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”
State v. Van Pelt, 698 S.E.2d 504 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “Harassing Phone Call N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-196 (a)(3) provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person .”
In Re: D.W.L.B. (N.C. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-196 (a) (2018). In the same respect, we conclude that no one would reasonably believe that the words “BOMB INCOMING,” written in a bathroom at some unknown time in the past and obviously by an elementary-school-aged student, represented a report of an…”
In Re: D.W.L.B. (N.C. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-196 (a) (2018) (criminalizing the use of a telephone for harassment).”
State v. Rager (N.C. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-196 (a)(3) (2023). The State’s only witness, Sergeant Craig, testified that Defendant had called - 16 - STATE V.”
State v. Best, 168 S.E.2d 433 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969).
“” By virtue of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, a defendant who is charged with a misdemeanor amounting to a serious offense has a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel during his trial.”
State v. Boone, 340 S.E.2d 527 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “The essential elements of a G.S. 14-196(a)(3) violation are “(1) repeatedly telephoning another person, (2) with the intent or purpose of abusing, annoying, threatening, terrifying, harassing or embarrassing any person at the called number.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-196(a) — 3 cases
In Re Simmons, 210 S.E.2d 84 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).
“At the hearing before the District Judge respondent’s counsel by timely motions attacked the constitutionality of G.S. 14-196 (a) (1) on the grounds that the statute is vague and over- *30 broad and violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”
In Re: D.W.L.B. (N.C. Ct. App. 2019).
“See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-196 (a) (2018). In the same respect, we conclude that no one would reasonably believe that the words “BOMB INCOMING,” written in a bathroom at some unknown time in the past and obviously by an elementary-school-aged student, represented a report of an…”
In Re: D.W.L.B. (N.C. Ct. App. 2019).
“See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-196 (a) (2018) (criminalizing the use of a telephone for harassment).”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-196(a)(1) — 1 case
Radford v. Webb, 446 F. Supp. 608 (W.D.N.C. 1978).
“Petitioner was convicted of a misdemean- or violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-196 in Union County District Court on December 30, 1976, upon a charge that he had used “profane, indecent and threatening language” over a telephone.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-196(a)(2) — 1 case
Radford v. Webb, 446 F. Supp. 608 (W.D.N.C. 1978).
“Petitioner was convicted of a misdemean- or violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-196 in Union County District Court on December 30, 1976, upon a charge that he had used “profane, indecent and threatening language” over a telephone.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-196(a)(3) — 4 cases
State v. Camp, 295 S.E.2d 766 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982).
“Defendant alleges in his first assignment of error that the warrant charged him with committing acts that did not violate G.S. 14-196(a)(3) which states: It shall be unlawful for any person to telephone another repeatedly, whether or not conversation ensues, for the purpose of…”
State v. Bishop, 774 S.E.2d 337 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015).
“The State contends this statute is analogous to the North Carolina Harassing Telephone Calls statute, which criminalizes making repeated telephone calls "for the purpose of abusing, annoying, threatening, terrifying, harassing or embarrassing any person at the called number[.”
Radford v. Webb, 446 F. Supp. 608 (W.D.N.C. 1978).
“Petitioner was convicted of a misdemean- or violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-196 in Union County District Court on December 30, 1976, upon a charge that he had used “profane, indecent and threatening language” over a telephone.”
State v. Boone, 340 S.E.2d 527 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).
“The essential elements of a G.S. 14-196(a)(3) violation are “(1) repeatedly telephoning another person, (2) with the intent or purpose of abusing, annoying, threatening, terrifying, harassing or embarrassing any person at the called number.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-196(a)(8) — 1 case
State v. Camp, 295 S.E.2d 766 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982).
“Defendant alleges in his first assignment of error that the warrant charged him with committing acts that did not violate G.S. 14-196(a)(3) which states: It shall be unlawful for any person to telephone another repeatedly, whether or not conversation ensues, for the purpose of…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-196(a)(l) — 1 case
Radford v. Webb, 446 F. Supp. 608 (W.D.N.C. 1978).
“Petitioner was convicted of a misdemean- or violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-196 in Union County District Court on December 30, 1976, upon a charge that he had used “profane, indecent and threatening language” over a telephone.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.