## Facts

- A juvenile petition in Guilford County District Court alleged that James Shelton Banks, a minor, was delinquent for violating N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.
- Section 14-202 made it a misdemeanor for any person to “peep secretly into any room occupied by a female person.”
- Banks moved to dismiss, arguing the statute was unconstitutional on its face as void for vagueness and overbroad.
- The district court agreed, declared the statute unconstitutional, and dismissed the petition.
- The State sought discretionary review in the Supreme Court of North Carolina before a Court of Appeals decision.
- The appellate record centered on the statute’s facial validity rather than detailed evidence of Banks’s conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202 is void for vagueness because it fails to give fair notice and a reasonably definite standard of guilt under due process.
2. Whether § 14-202 is unconstitutionally overbroad because, read literally, it criminalizes substantial innocent conduct beyond the legislature’s target.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the dismissal and upheld § 14-202.
- The court held the statute is not unconstitutionally vague when construed in light of its purpose.
- The court held the statute is not unconstitutionally overbroad because it can be narrowly construed to exclude innocent conduct.
- The court construed “peep secretly” to mean wrongful spying into a room occupied by a female, done with intent to violate the female occupant’s legitimate expectation of privacy.
- Under that construction, the statute provides fair notice and a workable standard for judges, lawyers, and factfinders.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires a criminal statute to provide fair notice of prohibited conduct and reasonably definite standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement.
- A statute is presumed constitutional and will be invalidated only upon a clear conflict with constitutional requirements.
- Criminal statutes are strictly construed, but courts may interpret ambiguous language to effect legislative purpose and avoid readings that defeat that purpose.
- A court may adopt a narrowing construction to confine a statute to its legitimate reach and to avoid facial invalidation for vagueness or excessive sweep.
- Under § 14-202, liability requires wrongful, clandestine observation aimed at invading a female occupant’s legitimate expectation of privacy.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the “Peeping Tom” statute by construing it to punish only intentional, wrongful privacy invasion through secret spying, which supplied adequate notice and standards of guilt and avoided facial invalidation for vagueness or overbreadth.


In re Banks, 295 N.C. 236, 244 S.E.2d 386 (N.C. 1978)