N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 14
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-29 (2026)

Castration or other maiming without malice aforethought

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Oct. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 14 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If any person shall, on purpose and unlawfully, but without malice aforethought, cut, or slit the nose, bite or cut off the nose, or a lip or an ear, or disable any limb or member of any other person, or castrate any other person, or cut off, maim or disfigure any of the privy members of any other person, with intent to kill, maim, disfigure, disable or render impotent such person, the person so offending shall be punished as a Class E felon. (1754, c. 56, P.R.; 1791, c. 339, ss. 2, 3, P.R.; 1831, c. 40, s. 2; R.C., c. 34, s. 47; Code, s. 1000; Rev., s. 3626; C.S., s. 4211; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1, c. 179, s. 14; 1993, c. 539, s. 1134; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1946–2011 · leading case: State v. Bass, 120 S.E.2d 580 (N.C. 1961).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bass, 120 S.E.2d 580 (N.C. 1961). · cites it 9× “(1) It is contended that Rogers consented to the maiming and that because of this consent the act of James Bryson in cutting off Rogers’ fingers is not a violation of G.S. 14-29 upon which the indictment is based.”
State v. Flaugher, 713 S.E.2d 576 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-29 (2009) provides: “If any person shall, on purpose and unlawfully, but without malice aforethought, cut, or slit the nose, bite or cut off the nose, or a lip or an ear, or disable any limb or member of any other person, or castrate any other person, or cut…”
State v. Foy, 503 S.E.2d 399 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 13× “On 3 October 1996, defendant was convicted of three crimes allegedly committed during the December altercation: maiming without malice, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-29 (1993); injury to personal property, in violation of N.”
State v. Beasley, 164 S.E.2d 742 (N.C. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 4× “In passing upon a motion for nonsuit the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and the State is entitled to every reasonable intendment thereon and every reasonable inference therefrom.”
State v. Scott, 587 S.E.2d 485 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 14× “In this case, since Heusmann’s ear was not completely removed, defendant argues that the State did not carry its burden of proof.”
State v. Malpass, 38 S.E.2d 156 (N.C. 1946). · cites it 3× “The first three exceptive assignments of error set out in the appellant’s brief have their origin in his Honor’s refusal to allow the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action on the first count in the bill of indictment, namely, violation of G. S., 14-29, duly lodged when the…”
State v. Haulk, 247 S.E.2d 798 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “G.S. 14-29 provides as follows: “If any person shall, on purpose and unlawfully, but without malice aforethought .”
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.