{ "id": 8548647, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE BALDWIN, JR.", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Baldwin", "decision_date": "1977-10-19", "docket_number": "No. 7715SC406", "first_page": "307", "last_page": "309", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "34 N.C. App. 307" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "342 P. 2d 2", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "172 Cal. App. 2d 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4384567 ], "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-2d/172/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "346 A. 2d 340", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "342" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "237 Pa. Super. 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa. Super.", "case_ids": [ 6770229 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa-super/237/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 A. 2d 602", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 N.J. Super. 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J. Super.", "case_ids": [ 305955 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nj-super/143/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 N.Y.S. 2d 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d", "year": 1940, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 Cal. Rptr. 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "266 Cal. App. 2d 341", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2227659 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-2d/266/0341-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 A. 2d 843", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "844" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "452 Pa. 495", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 574461 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa/452/0495-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 322, "char_count": 4606, "ocr_confidence": 0.814, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4768194515601915e-07, "percentile": 0.6603477654488736 }, "sha256": "f01d8867f51fd25ab0e924ac605d602c442ea06fa3a0de477911da8455a4c21b", "simhash": "1:fdb6e65f8ad9b0a2", "word_count": 786 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:28:15.830309+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges BRITT and MARTIN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE BALDWIN, JR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s assignments of error all relate to the single question of whether the State in a prosecution for violation of G.S. 14-415.1 is required to submit evidence that the gun of which defendant was charged with possessing was in operable condition. North Carolina General Statutes, \u00a7 14-415.1(a) reads as follows:\n\u201cIt shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted in any court of this State, of any other state of the United States ... of feloniously violating any provision of Article . . . 8 ... of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes to purchase, own, possess, or have in his custody, care, or control any handgun or other firearm with a barrel length of less than 18 inches or an overall length of less than 26 inches within five years from the date of such conviction ...\u201d\nIn the present case the State produced evidence tending to prove the defendant\u2019s constructive possession of a shotgun \u201cwith a barrel length of less than 18 inches or an overall length of less than 26 inches within five years from the date of . . . [a] conviction\u201d for felonious assault. There was also testimony that the shotgun had been examined by Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents to determine if it was operable. However, the State failed to introduce the results of this examination. Thus, the record is wholly devoid of any evidence that the shotgun found in defendant\u2019s possession was capable of being fired.\nSince the issue raised is of first impression in this State, defendant requests that we look to other jurisdictions for guidance. In the cases cited by defendant from Pennsylvania, California and New York the courts have held that similar statutes in those states were \u201cobviously intended to cover only objects which could cause violence by firing a shot,\u201d and therefore, that guns incapable of being fired were not \u201cfirearms\u201d within the meaning of the statutes. Commonwealth v. Layton, 452 Pa. 495, \u2014, 307 A. 2d 843, 844 (1973). See also People v. Jackson, 266 Cal. App. 2d 341, 72 Cal. Rptr. 162 (1968); People v. Boitano, 18 N.Y.S. 2d 644 (1940). But see State v. Middleton, 143 N.J. Super. 18, 362 A. 2d 602 (1976). However, each of the cited cases can be distinguished from the present case by the fact that there was uncontroverted evidence in each case that the gun possessed by the defendant was inoperable. These same courts have pointed out in other cases that the State \u201cneed not show the weapon to have been operable until evidence of its inoperability has been introduced . . . .\u201d Commonwealth v. Horshaw, 237 Pa. Super. 76, \u2014, 346 A. 2d 340, 342 (1975). See also People v. Halcomb, 172 Cal. App. 2d 177, 342 P. 2d 2 (1959).\nIn the present case there is no evidence as to whether the gun found in the defendant\u2019s possession was operable. We hold that the evidence offered by the State is sufficient to require the submission of the case to the jury and to support the verdict.\nNo error.\nJudges BRITT and MARTIN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HEDRICK, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Norma S. Harrell for the State.", "Levine and Stewart by John T. Stewart for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE BALDWIN, JR.\nNo. 7715SC406\n(Filed 19 October 1977)\nWeapons and Firearms\u2014 possession of shotgun by felon \u2014 operability of gun \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nIn a prosecution for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon where the State offered evidence that defendant had been convicted of a felony within five years and that he was in possession of a shotgun, but there was no evidence as to whether the gun was operable, evidence was sufficient to require submission of the case to the jury and to support the verdict.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Lee, Judge. Judgment entered 7 December 1976 in Superior Court, ORANGE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 September 1977.\nDefendant was charged in a proper bill of indictment with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. G.S. 14-415.1.\nThe evidence presented by the State tends to show the following: Early on the morning of 10 July 1976 a vehicle operated by defendant, George Baldwin, was stopped by a police officer in the town of Chapel Hill. An examination of the interior of the vehicle revealed a cartridge belt and a 12 gauge sawed-off shotgun. Shotgun shells were found in the pocket of the defendant. A criminal record introduced at trial by the State disclosed that on 2 March 1972 defendant had entered a plea of guilty to a charge of felonious assault.\nDefendant offered no evidence.\nThe jury rendered a verdict of guilty as charged. From a judgment imposing a prison term of five years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Norma S. Harrell for the State.\nLevine and Stewart by John T. Stewart for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0307-01", "first_page_order": 335, "last_page_order": 337 }