State v. Carey, 831 S.E.2d 597

On 16 July 2016 Defendant Adam Carey, driving a Dodge Charger with emergency lights, pulled over a speeding vehicle; an officer discovered the Charger’s registration did not belong to a law-enforcement agency, leading to Defendant’s arrest and a search of his car.
Officers found firearms, magazines, ammunition, suppressors, a medic badge, and three diversionary flash‑bang grenades in Defendant’s vehicle.
Defendant was indicted on multiple counts including three counts of possession of weapons of mass death and destruction and impersonating a law enforcement officer; several counts were later dismissed before trial.
A jury convicted Defendant of one count of possession of a weapon of mass death and destruction (based on the flash‑bangs) and one count of impersonating a law enforcement officer; the trial court imposed suspended sentences with active time and probation.
On appeal Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on the weapon‑of‑mass‑death‑and‑destruction charge and argued plain error in jury instructions; he did not contest the impersonation conviction on appeal.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the impersonation conviction (appeal abandoned for lack of argument), reversed the weapon‑of‑mass‑death conviction, and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Carey)	Held
1. Sufficiency: whether flash‑bang grenades qualify as a “weapon of mass death and destruction” under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14‑288.8(c)(1)	Items listed in statute include “grenade”; flash‑bangs are grenades/ordnance and thus fall within the statute	Flash‑bangs are diversionary devices, non‑fragmentary and not of the same kind/character as enumerated catastrophic explosives; insufficient evidence to convict	Reversed: flash‑bangs do not fall within the statute when construed narrowly; motion to dismiss should have been granted
2. Jury instruction on statutory definition	(implicitly) no reversible error asserted on instruction	Trial court failed to instruct jury on statutory definition of “weapon of mass death and destruction” (plain error)	Not reached on merits because conviction reversed on sufficiency grounds
3. Instructional theory not alleged in indictment	(implicitly) State relied on “grenade” theory at trial	Court preemptively told jury possession of a “grenade” would satisfy the element though indictment described “flash bang grenades” specifically (plain error/variance)	Not reached on merits because conviction reversed on sufficiency grounds
4. Impersonation conviction	State: supported by evidence and not challenged on appeal	Carey: raised no appellate argument	Affirmed: appeal of impersonation conviction abandoned for failure to brief/argue

State v. Sherrod, 191 N.C. App. 776 (N.C. Ct. App.) (definition and scope of “weapon” in criminal context)
State v. Fenner, 263 N.C. 694 (N.C.) (articulating ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction)
State v. Heavner, 227 N.C. App. 139 (N.C. Ct. App.) (application of rule of lenity where statute is ambiguous)
State v. Crawford, 167 N.C. App. 777 (N.C. Ct. App.) (rule of lenity applies only when statute ambiguous)
State v. Wiggins, 210 N.C. App. 128 (N.C. Ct. App.) (rule of lenity forbids increasing criminal penalties through ambiguous statutory construction)
State v. Billinger, 213 N.C. App. 249 (N.C. Ct. App.) (elements required to convict for possession of a weapon of mass death and destruction)
State v. Jamison, 234 N.C. App. 231 (N.C. Ct. App.) (when statute unambiguous, courts give plain meaning effect)
State v. Bollinger, 192 N.C. App. 241 (N.C. Ct. App.) (surplus descriptive language in an indictment does not create fatal variance)
State v. Jordan, 333 N.C. 431 (N.C.) (plain error standard)
State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655 (N.C.) (plain error articulation)