{ "id": 8563953, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES SUMNER LEE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lee", "decision_date": "1970-10-14", "docket_number": "No. 27", "first_page": "242", "last_page": "246", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "277 N.C. 242" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "174 S.E. 2d 658", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "8 N.C. App. 601", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554255 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/8/0601-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S. Ct. 29", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "364 U.S. 856", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6262310, 6261993, 6261332, 6261718, 6260982 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/364/0856-05", "/us/364/0856-04", "/us/364/0856-02", "/us/364/0856-03", "/us/364/0856-01" ] }, { "cite": "364 U.S. 177", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6164905 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/364/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 S. Ct. 737", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "359 U.S. 951", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6228610, 6227931, 6228268, 6228966 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/359/0951-03", "/us/359/0951-01", "/us/359/0951-02", "/us/359/0951-04" ] }, { "cite": "103 S.E. 2d 846", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "248 N.C. 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624484 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/248/0485-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 S.E. 2d 663", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "230 N.C. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630905 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/230/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S.E. 1019", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "170 N.C. 701", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8662048 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/170/0701-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 712", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570652 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 S.E. 2d 293", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "265 N.C. 178", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "140 S.E. 2d 349", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "263 N.C. 694", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572645 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/263/0694-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 S.E. 2d 386", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 329", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8609931 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0329-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 S.E. 2d 292", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 363", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610541 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0363-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 448, "char_count": 9542, "ocr_confidence": 0.579, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.481867810964382e-07, "percentile": 0.9458541791432628 }, "sha256": "a7b50207b85a1df94084e415122dc469679676dc3d9cd99dc2ddfbd1df245295", "simhash": "1:3c3134fb955965d4", "word_count": 1598 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:02:40.568981+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES SUMNER LEE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MOORE, Justice.\nThe warrant charged that defendant \u201cdid possess a machine gun or submachine gun or other like weapon, to wit: a Universal Caliber 30 Ml Carbine, Serial No. 135258, capable of firing thirty-one (31) shots, by the successive pulling of the trigger . . . in violation of G.S. 14-409.\u201d G.S. 14-409 in pertinent part provides: \u201cIt shall be unlawful for any person ... to possess machine guns, submachine guns, or other like weapons. . . . Provided, further, that automatic shotguns and pistols or other automatic weapons that shoot less than thirty-one shots shall not be construed to be or mean a machine gun or submachine gun under this section.\u201d\nWhen the words of a statute have not acquired a technical meaning, they must be construed in accordance with their common and ordinary meaning unless a definite meaning is apparent or definitely indicated by the context. Greensboro v. Smith, 241 N.C. 363, 85 S.E. 2d 292; Alliance Co. v. State Hospital, 241 N.C. 329, 85 S.E. 2d 386. The usual and customary definitions of the words used in this statute are as follows: A machine gun is defined as \u201can automatic gun using small-arms ammunition for rapid continuous firing\u201d; a submachine gun as \u201ca lightweight automatic or semiautomatic portable firearm fired from the shoulder or hip\u201d; a carbine as \u201ca light automatic or semiautomatic military rifle\u201d (Webster\u2019s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary) ; and an automatic rifle as \u201ca rifle capable commonly of either semiautomatic or full automatic fire and designed to be fired without a mount.\u201d (Webster\u2019s Third New Collegiate Dictionary.)\nThe word \u201cautomatic\u201d as used in connection with a firearm is one \u201cusing either gas pressure or force of recoil and mechanical spring action for repeatedly ejecting the empty cartridge shell, introducing a new cartridge and firing it,\u201d while a semiautomatic firearm is defined as one \u201cemploying gas pressure or force of recoil and mechanical spring action to eject the empty cartridge case after the first shot and load the next cartridge from the magazine but requiring release and another pressure of the trigger for each successive shot.\u201d (Webster\u2019s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary.) The technical difference then between the automatic and semiautomatic weapon is that the automatic continues to fire without further pull of the trigger while the semiautomatic requires another pull of the trigger for each successive shot. The semiautomatic is autoloading in that it is loaded automatically but does not fire automatically. The automatic both loads and fires automatically. While technically there is this difference, in ordinary usage the word \u201cautomatic\u201d is used to describe both automatic and semiautomatic weapons.\nApplying the definitions from Webster to the words of the statute (G.S. 14-409), a machine gun is automatic, a submachine gun can be automatic or semiautomatic. What then is meant by the phrase, \u201cor other like weapons\u201d? \u201cIn the construction of statutes, the ejusdem generis rule is that where general words follow a designation of particular subjects or things, the meaning of the general words will ordinarily be presumed to be, and construed as, restricted by the particular designations and as including only things of the same kind, character and nature as those specifically enumerated.\u201d State v. Fenner, 263 N.C. 694, 140 S.E. 2d 349; State v. Smith, 265 N.C. 178, 143 S.E. 2d 293; State v. Ross, 272 N.C. 67, 157 S.E. 2d 712. Applying this rule, the statute would then read: \u201cIt shall be unlawful for any person ... to possess machine guns, submachine guns, or other automatic or semiautomatic weapons.\u201d\nThe statute goes further, however, and has a proviso which excludes automatic shotguns and pistols or other automatic weapons that shoot less than 31 shots. Again, giving the usual and customary meaning to the word \u201cautomatic,\u201d the proviso would exclude automatic weapons or semiautomatic weapons which shoot less than 31 shots. That this interpretation is correct seems apparent from the use of the words \u201cautomatic shotguns,\u201d which ordinarily are called automatic but invariably are semiautomatic. The real reason for the exclusion under this proviso is not the difference in the rate of fire between an automatic and a semiautomatic weapon, but the more important consideration is the number of shots which can be fired without reloading. The better reasoning seems to be, and we so hold, that the General Assembly intended to include within the prohibition of the statute all weapons either automatic or semiautomatic which shoot 31 times or more and to exclude such weapons which shoot less than 31 times.\nThe warrant in this case charges that the defendant \u201cdid possess a machine gun or submachine gun or other like weapon, to wit: a Universal Caliber 30 Ml Carbine, Serial No. 135258, capable of firing 31 shots by the successive pulling of the trigger.\u201d In effect this charges that the carbine in question was a semiautomatic weapon capable of firing 31 shots. The defendant contends that by the manufacturer\u2019s specifications this carbine shoots less than 31 shots \u2014 30 to be exact \u2014 and therefore it is expressly excluded from the operation of tire statute, and that the trial court properly allowed the motion to quash.\nA motion to quash can be properly allowed on the ground that the matter charged does not constitute a criminal offense. State v. Turner, 170 N.C. 701, 86 S.E. 1019. In ruling on a motion to quash, however, the court is not permitted to consider extraneous evidence, and when the defect must be established by evidence aliunde the record, the motion must be denied. State v. Cochran, 230 N.C. 523, 53 S.E. 2d 663; State v. Cooke, 248 N.C. 485, 103 S.E. 2d 846, app. dismd. in part 359 U.S. 951, 3 L. ed. 2d 759, 79 S. Ct. 737, app. dismd. Wolfe v. North Carolina, 364 U.S. 177, 4 L. ed. 2d 1650, 80 S. Ct. 1482, reh. den. 364 U.S. 856, 5 L. ed. 2d 80, 81 S. Ct. 29.\nThe warrant in this case properly charged that the carbine in question was capable of firing 31 shots. To sustain the motion to quash, it was necessary for the trial court to find from evidence dehors the record that it would fire only 30 shots. This was error.\nIf the defendant\u2019s contention is correct and the carbine shoots only 30 shots, it is legal under the statute; if it shoots more, it is illegal. This is a matter to be determined in the trial, upon proper proof, and the motion to quash should have been overruled.\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals is\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "MOORE, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney Donald M. Jacobs for the State.", "Pearson, Malone, Johnson & DeJarmon for defendant ap-pellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES SUMNER LEE\nNo. 27\n(Filed 14 October 1970)\n1. Weapons and Firearms \u2014 possession of machine or submachine gun \u2014 sufficiency of warrant \u2014 motion to quash\nA warrant charging that the defendant \u201cdid possess a machine gun or submachine gun or other like weapon, to wit: a Universal Caliber 30 Ml Carbine, Serial No. 135258, capable of firing 31 shots by the successive pulling of the trigger,\u201d is held sufficient to charge a viol\u00e1tion of the offense making it unlawful for any person to possess machine guns, submachine guns, or other automatic or semiautomatic weapons, with the exception of such weapons which shoot less than 31 shots; the trial court in this case erred in granting defendant\u2019s motion to quash on the ground that the carbine in his possession could only fire 30 shots. G.S. 14-409.\n2. Statutes \u00a7 5\u2014 construction of words\nWhen the words of a statute have not acquired a technical meaning, they must be construed in accordance with their common and ordinary meaning unless a definite meaning is apparent or definitely indicated by the context.\n3. Statutes \u00a7 5\u2014 ejusdem generis rule\nIn the construction of statutes, the ejusdem, generis rule is that where general words follow a designation of particular subjects or things, the meaning of the general words will ordinarily be presumed to be, and construed as, restricted by the particular designations and as including only things of the same kind, character and nature as those specifically enumerated.\n4. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 14\u2014 motion to quash\nA motion to quash can be properly allowed on the ground that the matter charged does not constitute a criminal offense.\n5. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 14\u2014 motion to quash \u2014 consideration of extraneous evidence\nIn ruling on a motion to quash, the court is not permitted to consider extraneous evidence, and when the defect must be established by evidence aliunde the record, the motion must be denied.\nAppeal by the State under the provisions of G.S. 7A-30(2) from the Court of Appeals.\nDefendant was tried in District Court in Lee County on 9 September 1969 on a warrant charging the unlawful possession of a machine gun or submachine gun or other like weapon, in violation of G.S. 14-409, and from a verdict of guilty appealed to the Superior Court for trial de novo. Upon the call of the case in Superior Court on 28 October 1969, defendant moved to quash the warrant because: (1) the weapon described in the warrant was not such a weapon as was covered by the statute, and (2) as applied to defendant the statute (G.S. 14-409) was void for vagueness. The trial court ruled that the weapon described in the warrant was not a machine gun, submachine gun or other like weapon within the meaning of G.S. 14-409, and quashed the warrant. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, with Judge Graham dissenting. 8 N.C. App. 601, 174 S.E. 2d 658.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney Donald M. Jacobs for the State.\nPearson, Malone, Johnson & DeJarmon for defendant ap-pellee." }, "file_name": "0242-01", "first_page_order": 262, "last_page_order": 266 }