State v. Carey, 373 N.C. 445

Early-morning traffic stop of Adam Carey led to search of his vehicle; officers found three diversionary/"flash bang" grenades in the trunk, labeled "GRENADE, HAND, DIVERSIONARY."
Carey was indicted on multiple counts, including possession of a "weapon of mass death and destruction" under N.C.G.S. § 14-288.8(a) based on the grenades; trial resulted in convictions and sentencing (some sentences suspended).
Carey appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed the weapon-of-mass-death-and-destruction conviction as to the flash-bang grenades, reasoning that "grenade" in the statute must be read via ejusdem generis and the rule of lenity to require capability of causing catastrophic death/destruction.
North Carolina Supreme Court granted review to decide whether an "explosive or incendiary . . . grenade" in § 14-288.8(c)(1) unambiguously includes diversionary/flash-bang grenades.
The Supreme Court held the statutory language unambiguous: any "explosive or incendiary" grenade is covered; it rejected the Court of Appeals’ ejusdem generis and lenity-based narrowing.
The Court also held the State presented substantial evidence the devices were explosive grenades (labeling and trooper testimony) and reversed the Court of Appeals, remanding for consideration of Carey’s remaining challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Carey)	Held
Whether a "flash-bang" grenade is a "weapon of mass death and destruction" under N.C.G.S. § 14-288.8(c)(1)	Statute unambiguously includes "any explosive or incendiary . . . grenade," so flash-bangs are covered	Statute ambiguous; many grenade types exist and flash-bangs are nonlethal diversionary devices, so ejusdem generis and lenity require exclusion	The Court held the statute is unambiguous; any "explosive or incendiary" grenade is covered, rejecting narrowing doctrines
Whether the State presented substantial evidence the items were "explosive or incendiary" grenades	Labels on the items and trooper's military/technical testimony that they explode with a bright flash and loud bang support that they are explosive diversionary grenades	(Carey did not dispute possession; contended flash-bangs are not weapons capable of mass death)	The Court held the evidence was substantial to show the devices were explosive grenades
Effect of Court of Appeals' reversal and next steps	State urged reversal of the Court of Appeals' statutory construction and reinstatement of conviction	Court of Appeals had reversed and declined to reach remaining issues	Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for consideration of Carey’s remaining challenges

Correll v. Div. of Soc. Servs., 332 N.C. 141 (statutory-construction principle: begin with statutory text)
Elec. Supply Co. of Durham v. Swain Elec. Co., 328 N.C. 651 (statutory-text controlling when clear)
State v. Lee, 277 N.C. 242 (explaining ejusdem generis canon)
State v. Jackson, 353 N.C. 495 (when statute is unambiguous courts must apply plain meaning)
In re Banks, 295 N.C. 236 (statutory construction and legislative intent principles)
State v. Campbell, 835 S.E.2d 844 (standard for substantial-evidence review in criminal cases)
State v. Bradshaw, 366 N.C. 90 (definition of substantial evidence)
State v. Carey, 831 S.E.2d 597 (Court of Appeals decision reversed by this opinion)