NC · jury_instructions
N.C.P.I.—Crim. 226.57
HARASSING BY REPEATED TELEPHONE CALLS. MISDEMEANOR.
The defendant has been charged with telephoning another repeatedly
for the purpose of [abusing] [annoying] [threatening] [terrifying]
[harassing] [embarrassing] any person at the called number.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must
prove two things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that the defendant repeatedly telephoned (name person or
telephone number).
And Second, that he did this for the purpose of [abusing] [annoying]
[threatening] [terrifying] [harassing] [embarrassing] [(name person)] [any
person at the called number]
If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or
about the alleged date(s), the defendant repeatedly telephoned (name
person or telephone number) for the purpose of [abusing] [annoying]
[threatening] [terrifying] [harassing] [embarrassing] [(name person)] [any
person at that number], it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. If
you do not so find or have a reasonable doubt as to one or both of these
things, it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
History
N.C.P.I.—Crim. 226.57 (Replacement March 2001). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-196(a)(3). Prepared by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges' Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions, assisted by the UNC School of Government; published by the School of Government.
Provenance
- Source
- sog.unc.edu
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-25
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
821476b15ad617959d381ff9cd58a6017c9397b0d99ad4a0bfd541d8371a8f52
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.