Repeal Crime Against Nature Law
Senate Bill 274 repeals North Carolina’s existing “crime against nature” statute, G.S. 14-177, and replaces it with a narrower, separate criminal offense of bestiality. The new offense is defined as a person performing or submitting to a sexual act with an animal involving the sex organs of one and the mouth, anus, penis, or vagina of the other, and it is classified as a Class I felony. The bill also makes conforming changes throughout the General Statutes to remove references to the repealed offense and to add the new bestiality offense where related laws refer to criminal sexual conduct.
In addition to creating the new offense, the bill updates child welfare and educator-licensing statutes. It amends the juvenile abuse definition in Chapter 7B to include bestiality alongside other sexual offenses, and it revises the automatic educator license revocation statute so that a conviction for bestiality, like the repealed crime against nature offense, triggers automatic revocation without a hearing. The act applies only to offenses committed on or after December 1, 2025.
The bill’s impact on state law is primarily to modernize and narrow a longstanding criminal provision while preserving criminal penalties for conduct involving animals. It removes the broad “crime against nature” label from the code, creates a more specific bestiality offense, and ensures that related regulatory and child-protection statutes continue to capture the conduct under the new terminology. Affected parties include criminal defendants, child welfare authorities, and licensed educators subject to discipline.
Because no committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials. Based on the bill’s structure and title, the measure appears to be framed as a targeted criminal-law revision rather than a major policy expansion, with the main policy choice being whether to replace an older, broader offense with a more specific bestiality statute. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the provided history means sentiment cannot be measured directly from the available context, though the bill’s drafting suggests an intent to clarify and update the law rather than eliminate penalties for the underlying conduct.
Notable points of contention, if any, would likely center on the repeal of the “crime against nature” offense and whether the new statute sufficiently preserves enforcement while avoiding overbreadth. Another possible issue is the continued use of the offense in collateral consequences, such as juvenile abuse findings and automatic educator license revocation. No specific objections or endorsements are documented in the materials provided.
The bill repeals G.S. 14-177, removes references to that offense from related statutes, and creates a new Class I felony offense of bestiality in Article 47 of Chapter 14. It also updates juvenile abuse and educator licensure provisions so that bestiality remains a triggering offense for child-protection and professional-discipline purposes. The changes affect criminal law, child welfare law, and professional licensing, with prospective application only to offenses committed on or after December 1, 2025.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative support or opposition in the supplied materials. The bill’s text suggests a generally technical and clarifying approach: it narrows an older offense, preserves punishment for the underlying conduct, and aligns related statutes with the new terminology. On that basis, the available context points to a neutral-to-supportive framing, but sentiment cannot be confirmed from the record provided.
The main potential point of contention is the repeal of the broad “crime against nature” statute and whether replacing it with a specific bestiality offense changes the scope of criminal liability or enforcement. Related concerns could involve the collateral consequences tied to the offense, including automatic educator license revocation and juvenile abuse findings. No specific supporters or opponents are identified in the provided transcripts or vote history.