Status message

  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.
  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.

  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.
  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.
  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.
  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.

State v. Corbett, ___ N.C. App. ___, 824 S.E.2d 875 (Feb. 19, 2019)

The evidence was sufficient to support convictions for first-and second-degree sexual exploitation of a minor. On appeal the defendant argued that a key photograph introduced at trial did not depict the victim engaged in “sexual activity.” The definition of “sexual activity” for purposes of both offenses includes “[t]he lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.” This prong of the definition of “sexual activity” was the theory on which the State proceeded. The courts have defined the term “lascivious” as “tending to arouse sexual desire.” A reasonable jury could have found that the photograph meets the definition of “lascivious.” The focal point of the picture is the victim’s naked body. She is standing in her father’s bedroom, a setting generally associated with sexual activity, naked except for her socks. The photograph is clearly intended to elicit a sexual response based on the context in which it was taken, which included the defendant’s repeated attempts to touch the victim sexually. The court went on to reject the defendant’s argument that the photograph does not actually contain an exhibition of the victim’s genitals or pubic area. It noted that her fingers are spread far enough apart such that her pubic area is at least partially visible. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, reasonable jurors could have determined that the photograph depicted the victim’s pubic area.