Case Name: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES SUMNER LEE
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1970-06-24
Citations: 8 N.C. App. 601
Docket Number: No. 7011SC104
Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES SUMNER LEE
Judges: Britt, J., concurs.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 601–602

Head Matter:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES SUMNER LEE
No. 7011SC104
(Filed 24 June 1970)
Weapons and Firearms— machine gun, submachine gun or like weapon
Weapon described in a warrant as “a Universal Caliber 30 Ml Carbine, Serial No. 135258, capable of firing thirty-one (31) shots, by successive pulling of the trigger” is not a “machine gun, submachine gun or other like weapon” within the meaning of G.S. 14-409.
Gkaham, J., dissents.
Appeal by the State from McKinnon, J., 27 October 1969 Session, Lee Superior Court.
Defendant was charged in a warrant with the unlawful possession of a machine gun or sub-machine 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. G.S. 14-409. The offense was alleged to have occurred on or about 2 September 1969. Defendant was tried in District Court on 9 September 1969, and from a verdict of guilty appealed to the Superior Court for trial de novo.
■ When the case was called for trial 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 judge ruled that the weapon as described in the warrant was not a “machine gun, sub-machine gun or other like weapon” within the meaning of G.S. 14-409. Based upon this ruling the trial judge quashed the warrant, an^; the. State appealed.
Attorney General Morgan, by Staff Attorney Jacobs for the State.
No appearance for defendant.

Opinion:
BROCK, J.
We have examined G.S. 14-409 and the warrant under which defendant was charged in this case, and we agree with the ruling of the trial judge.
Affirmed.
Britt, J., concurs.
Graham, J., dissents.