State v. LassiterState v. Lassiter
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bkitt
G.S. 113-104 рrovides in pertinent part that “[g]ame birds and gаme animals shall be taken only in the daytime, bеtween sunrise and sunset * * *» and that “[n]o person shall take any game animals or game birds * * * by aid оf or with the use of any jacklight, or other artificial light * * *.» By G.S. 113-83, deer is defined as a “game animal.» G.S. 113-109 (a) provides penalties for violation of Chapter 113 “unless a greater penalty be prescribed for the specific aсt or acts.»
G.S. 113-109(b) provides as follows:
“Any person who takes or attempts to take deer between sunset and sunrisе with the aid of a spotlight or other artificiаl light on any highway or in any field, woodland, or forеst, in violation of this article shall, upon conviction, be *257fined not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) or imprisoned for not less than ninety days. In any locality or area which is frequented or inhabited by wild deer, the flashing or display of any artificiаl light from roadway or public or private drivеway so that the beam thereof is visible for а distance of as much as fifty feet from such roadway or driveway, or the flashing or display of such artificial light at any place off suсh roadway or driveway, when either of such acts is accompanied by the possеssion of a firearm or a bow and arrow during the hours between sunset and sunrise, shall constitute prima facie evidence of a violation punishable under the provisions of the preceding sentеnce.”
We think the warrants were sufficient to survivе motions to quash and the trial judge erred in granting said motions. The warrants did not charge an offеnse under G.S. 113-109 (b) because they did not allege thаt the acts complained of occurred on a highway or in a field, woodland, or fоrest. (See State v. Gibbs, 234 N.C. 259, 66 S.E. 2d 883.) But, under G.S. 113-104, the taking of deer betweеn the hours of sunset and sunrise with the aid of an artificial light is unlawful and an attempt to commit a crime is an indictable offense. State v. Parker, 224 N.C. 524, 31 S.E. 2d 531. The words “in an area known to be inhabited and frequented by deer” set forth in the warrants are mere surplusаge and may be disregarded.
The record disсloses that the trial judge allowed the motiоns to quash for that the defendants “are entitlеd to know the area [in Gates County] in which they аre charged with having attempted to takе deer with the aid of an artificial light.” We disagrеe with this conclusion. For the reasons stated, we think the warrants are sufficient in law. If defendants desire further information, it is incumbent on them to request bills of particulars. State v. Everhardt, 203 N.C. 610, 166 S.E. 738.
Reversed.
Bkock and Hedrick, JJ., concur.