Back in February, I blogged about State v. Bridges, ___ N.C. App. ___, 810 S.E.2d 365 (Feb. 6, 2018), and drug identification. In short, Bridges held that the defendant’s out-of-court admission to an officer that a substance was “meth” was sufficient to meet the State’s burden of proving the identity of the substance, at least where the defendant failed to object to the testimony. This decision arguably signified an expansion of the Nabors exception to the Ward rule that a chemical analysis is generally required to establish drug identity (subject to other exceptions covered in the post). For a more thorough review of the topic, see that previous post. The Court of Appeals recently decided another drug ID case, State v. Osborne, ___ N.C. App. ___ (October 2, 2018), adding a new wrinkle to the rules. Facts. Responding to a call about a potential overdose at a hotel, officers found the defendant unconscious and “turning blue” in the bathroom of her room. The defendant’s two young children were present in the hotel room. Along with needles and bent, burnt spoons (commonly used to prepare heroin for intravenous use), officers discovered “a rock-like substance” in the room they suspected was heroin. A field-test indicated it was. First responders were able to revive the defendant with the overdose-reversing medicine naloxone, and the defendant admitted to having used heroin before losing consciousness. The defendant was charged with possession of heroin and two counts of misdemeanor child abuse. At trial, the State relied on the [...]
Faculty Coordinators
