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

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-5.2 (2026)

Accessory before fact punishable as principal felon

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 14 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All distinctions between accessories before the fact and principals to the commission of a felony are abolished. Every person who heretofore would have been guilty as an accessory before the fact to any felony shall be guilty and punishable as a principal to that felony.  However, if a person who heretofore would have been guilty and punishable as an accessory before the fact is convicted of a capital felony, and the jury finds that his conviction was based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of one or more principals, coconspirators, or accessories to the crime, he shall be guilty of a Class B2 felony. (1981, c. 686, s. 1; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 22, s. 6.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case: State v. Gaines, 483 S.E.2d 396 (N.C. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Gaines, 483 S.E.2d 396 (N.C. 1997). · cites it 6× “2d 163, 174 (1996), this Court, interpreting N.C.G.S. § 14-5.2, effective 1 July 1981 as to offenses committed after that date, held that actual or constructive presence is no longer required to prove a crime under an aiding and abetting theory.”
State v. Brown, 358 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. 1987). · cites it 6× “We noted in Woods that distinctions between an accessory before the fact and the principal had been abolished for purposes of sentencing and guilt by the enactment of N.C.G.S. § 14-5.2, but that the elements of being an accessory before the fact had remained the same, viz, that…”
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007). · cites it 2× “00 (West 2004); N.C. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 14-5.2 (Lexis 2005); N.”
State v. Woods, 297 S.E.2d 574 (N.C. 1982). · cites it 7× “G.S. 14-5.2 (1981). In responding to this Court’s holding in State v.”
State v. Larrimore, 456 S.E.2d 789 (N.C. 1995). · cites it 6× “The controlling statute, N.C.G.S. § 14-5.2, provides: All distinctions between accessories before the fact and principals to the commission of a felony are abolished.”
State v. Brewington, 532 S.E.2d 496 (N.C. 2000). · cites it 6× “” Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 14-5.2, North Carolina law does not rec *524 ognize any guilt or sentencing distinctions between an accessory before the fact and a principal to a felony.”
State v. Kemmerlin, 573 S.E.2d 870 (N.C. 2002). · cites it 3× “Every person who heretofore would have been guilty as an accessory before the fact to any felony shall be guilty and punishable as a principal to that felony.”
State v. Dick, 807 S.E.2d 545 (N.C. 2017). · cites it 6× “Our legislature abolished all distinctions between accessories before the fact and principals in the commission of felonies by enacting N.C.G.S. § 14-5.2, effective 1 July 1981.”
State v. Arnold, 392 S.E.2d 140 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 11× “N.C.G.S. § 14-5.2. In this context, it is error to allow the jury to find the defendant guilty of second degree murder when no inference can fairly be deduced from the evidence tending to prove that the principal committed murder in the second degree.”
State v. Suites, 427 S.E.2d 318 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 17× “Defendant appeals from a judgment entered 22 March 1991, which judgment is based on a plea of guilty by defendant to accessory before the fact to second-degree murder, N.C.G.S. §§ 14-5.2 and 14-17 (1986), a Class C felony with a maximum term of life in prison and a presumptive…”
State v. Charles Phillips Bond, 478 S.E.2d 163 (N.C. 1996). · cites it 3× “Our legislature abolished all distinctions between accessories before the fact and principals in the commission of felonies by enacting N.C.G.S. § 14-5.2, effective 1 July 1981.”
State v. Lowery, 347 S.E.2d 729 (N.C. 1986). · cites it 3× “The reason for the different treatment of his conspiracy conviction from that given to Small’s conspiracy conviction was the difference in the evidence and theory forming the basis for the murder convictions, not the different races of the two individuals involved. This…”
Show all 40 citing cases →
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.