(a) Prosecutions for any violation of law occurring prior to January 1, 1972, shall not be affected by these repealers, or amendments, or abated by reason, thereof.
(b) Civil seizures or forfeitures and injunctive proceedings commenced prior to January 1, 1972, shall not be affected by these repealers, or amendments, or abated by reason, thereof.
(c) All administrative proceedings pending on January 1, 1972, shall be continued and brought to final determination in accord with laws and regulations in effect prior to January 1, 1972. Such drugs placed under control prior to January 1, 1972, which are not included within Schedules I through VI of this Article shall automatically be controlled and listed in the appropriate schedule.
(d) The provisions of this Article shall be applicable to violations of law, seizures and forfeiture, injunctive proceedings, administrative proceedings, and investigations which occur following January 1, 1972. (1971, c. 919, s. 1.)
§ 90-113.8. Continuation of regulations.
Any orders, rules, and regulations which have been promulgated under any law affected by this act [c. 919 of the 1971 Session Laws] and which are in effect on the day preceding January 1, 1972, shall continue in effect until modified, superseded, or repealed by proper authority. (1971, c. 919, s. 2.)
Article 5A.
North Carolina Toxic Vapors Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1968–1975 · leading case:
State v. Williams, 212 S.E.2d 113 (N.C. 1975).
State v. Williams, 212 S.E.2d 113 (N.C. 1975).
· cites it 2× “Thus, if the saving clauses contained in G.S. 90-113.7 do not save the punishment provisions of the former act, they are useless and redundant.”
State v. Harvey, 187 S.E.2d 706 (N.C. 1972).
““§ 90-113.7 Pending proceedings.— (a) Prosecution for any violation of law occurring prior to January 1, 1972 shall not be affected by these repealers, or amendments, or abated by reason thereof.”
State v. Cook, 160 S.E.2d 49 (N.C. 1968).
“G.S. 90-113.7. Defendants assign as error that: (1) the search warrant was not issued by one legally authorized to do so and therefore void; (2) the evidence obtained by use of the void search warrant was inadmissible; (3) lay evidence was admitted to prove defendants were under…”
State v. Godwin, 187 S.E.2d 400 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 18× “Also the rationale of McIntyre and Smith seems to infer that "prosecution" is *403 limited and terminated at the "trial" stage of a criminal action and that only the "prosecution" (trial) is saved by G.S. § 90-113.7. We think "prosecution" has a much broader meaning.”
State v. Smith, 186 S.E.2d 600 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).
“Under the new Act, a first offense of possession of any quantity of marijuana is punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than six months or a fine of not more than $500.”
State v. McIntyre, 188 S.E.2d 304 (N.C. 1972).
· cites it 2× “The Controlled Substances Act specifically provided, however, that it would apply only to violations of law “following January 1, 1972,” and that prosecutions for any violations of law occurring prior to that date should not be affected by its provisions.”
State v. McIntyre, 186 S.E.2d 207 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).
“” It is noted that the above-quoted portion of G.S. 90-113.7 (a) does not now specifically refer to the punishment to be imposed, but the Act does reduce the crime of possession of more than one gram of marijuana from a felony to a misdemeanor, and the maximum punishment for the…”
State v. Kelly, 189 S.E.2d 163 (N.C. 1972).
“The expressed intent of the General Assembly that the provision of the Controlled Substances Act be prospective relates to the entire Act (G.S. 90-113.7). There is no indication in the Act that any particular provision shall be otherwise treated.”
State v. Williams, 188 S.E.2d 717 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).
“Under G.S. 90-113.7 of the new Act, effective 1 January 1972, it is stated that “Prosecutions for any violations of law occurring prior to January 1, 1972 shall not be affected by these repealers, or amendments, or abated by reason thereof.”
State v. Guy, 186 S.E.2d 663 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).
“However in doing so the General Assembly provided that: *639 “G.S. 90-113.7. Pending proceedings.— (a) Prosecutions for any violation of law occurring prior to January 1, 1972 shall not be affected by these repealers, or amendments, or abated by reason, thereof.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-113.7(a): 2 cases
State v. Smith, 186 S.E.2d 600 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).
“Under the new Act, a first offense of possession of any quantity of marijuana is punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than six months or a fine of not more than $500.”
State v. Godwin, 187 S.E.2d 400 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).
“Also the rationale of McIntyre and Smith seems to infer that "prosecution" is *403 limited and terminated at the "trial" stage of a criminal action and that only the "prosecution" (trial) is saved by G.S. § 90-113.7. We think "prosecution" has a much broader meaning.”
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.