For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion below, the court reversed State v. Lindsey, 219 N.C. App. 249 (Mar. 6, 2012). In the opinion below the court of appeals held—over a dissent—that there was insufficient evidence of constructive possession. After the defendant fled from his van, which he had crashed in a Wendy’s parking lot, an officer recovered a hat and a cell phone in the van’s vicinity. No weapons or contraband were found on the defendant or along his flight path. A search of the driver's side seat of the van revealed a "blunt wrapper" and a wallet with $800. Officers discovered a bag containing cocaine and a bag containing marijuana near trash receptacles in the Wendy's parking lot. The officers had no idea how long the bags had been there, and though the Wendy's was closed at the time, the lot was open and had been accessible by the public before the area was secured. Finding the evidence insufficient, the court of appeals noted that the defendant was not at his residence or in a place where he exercised any control; although an officer observed the defendant flee, he did not see the defendant take any actions consistent with disposing of the marijuana and cocaine in two separate locations in the parking lot; there was no physical evidence linking the defendant to the drugs recovered; and no drugs were found on or in the defendant's van. The dissenting court of appeals judge would have found the evidence sufficient to establish constructive possession of the marijuana.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion below, the court reversed a decision by the court of appeals in State v. Slaughter, 212 N.C. App. 59 (May 17, 2011). The court of appeals had held, over a dissent, that there was sufficient evidence of constructive possession of marijuana. The dissenting judge had noted that the evidence showed only that the defendant and two others were detained by a tactical team and placed on the floor of a 10-by-15 foot bedroom in the back of the mobile home, which had a pervasive odor of marijuana; inside the bedroom, police found, in plain view, numerous bags containing marijuana, approximately $38,000 in cash, several firearms, a grinder, and a digital scale; stacks of $20 and $100 bills, plastic sandwich baggies, and marijuana residue were found in the bathroom adjoining the bedroom. The dissenter noted that there was no evidence of the defendant's proximity to the contraband prior to being placed on the floor, after being placed on the floor, or relative to the other detained individuals. Having concluded that the evidence was insufficient as to proximity, the dissenting judge argued that mere presence in a room where contraband is located does not itself support an inference of constructive possession. The dissenting judge further concluded that the fact that the contraband was in plain view did not “take this case out of the realm of conjecture.” He asserted: “The contraband being in plain view suggests that defendant knew of its presence, but there is no evidence — and the majority points to none — indicating that defendant had the intent and capability to maintain control and dominion over it.” (quotation omitted). 

In this Davidson County case, defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, arguing error in (1) denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from a search of his vehicle, and (2) denying his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence that he knowingly possessed cocaine. The Court of Appeals found no error. 

In July of 2019, defendant was driving with two passengers when he was pulled over for failing to yield. After the officers had returned ID cards to defendant and his passengers, one officer asked for permission to search the vehicle. Defendant told the officer that he was on probation and had to allow the search. The officers discovered cocaine and drug paraphernalia during a search of the vehicle. Before trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress, which was denied. Defendant failed to object during trial when the State admitted evidence obtained through the search.  

Taking up (1), the Court of Appeals noted the standard of review was plain error as defendant did not object to the admission of evidence during the trial. Here, the search of the vehicle occurred after the traffic stop had concluded. Because defendant was on probation, he is presumed to “have given consent to a search where an officer has reasonable suspicion of a crime.” Slip Op. at 5. The trial court did not provide justification in writing, but in open court stated that she concluded the officer “had reasonable suspicion to conduct the search.” Id. at 6. The court noted that, although the trial court did not consider defendant freely giving consent in the absence of reasonable suspicion, “there was sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have found as fact at trial that Defendant voluntarily consented to the search had Defendant objected when the evidence was offered by the State.” Id. at 7. As a result, defendant could not show plain error from the failure to suppress. 

Dispensing with (2), the court noted that the State presented “evidence of other incriminating circumstances, including the placement of the cocaine in the driver’s door, as well as the Defendant’s nervous behavior,” to support the inference that defendant constructively possessed the cocaine. Id. at 8.

Judge Arrowood concurred by separate opinion, writing to address the analysis of the trial court related to the officer’s reasonable suspicion to extend the stop and conduct a search. 

In this Haywood County case, defendant appealed his convictions for trafficking and conspiracy to traffic methamphetamine and maintaining a vehicle for controlled substances, arguing he did not knowingly possess or traffic methamphetamine. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding no error. 

Based on a tip from a known drug dealer, detectives from the Haywood County Sheriff's Office monitored a hotel room in April of 2021. They observed two individuals leaving, and after a traffic stop with a K-9 unit, found methamphetamine. The officers continued monitoring the hotel room, and observed defendant and another person leave. After stopping defendant, they located marijuana and a large amount of currency in his vehicle, but no further meth. While defendant was in jail, he called an associate and gave her instructions on where to remove a portion of his vehicle to find hidden methamphetamine; law enforcement monitored the calls and intercepted the associate after she had removed the meth from the hiding places. This associate cooperated with the detectives and provided what she obtained from the vehicle, which was a large amount of meth. A search of the car taillight turned up additional meth. Defendant was subsequently convicted on all charges. 

The Court of Appeals took up each of defendant’s convictions in turn, beginning with the trafficking by possession charge. Defendant argued that he did not “knowingly possess” the methamphetamine. At trial, the State offered evidence that defendant constructively possessed the meth to show knowing possession. The court explained that to establish constructive possession, the evidence must show defendant’s non-exclusive possession of property where drugs are found, along with “other incriminating evidence ‘connecting the defendant to the drugs.’” Slip Op. at 9, quoting State v. Lakey, 183 N.C. App. 652, 656 (2007). Previous cases established that a “large amount of currency” and conduct showing “knowledge of the presence of a controlled substance” support a finding of constructive possession. Id. Here, evidence showed defendant regularly operated the car where the meth was found, he was driving it when he was arrested and it was impounded, and in the trunk officers found a large amount of currency and digital scales. This evidence combined with the instructions provided in the jailhouse phone call supported the conclusion that defendant had constructive possession of the meth. 

The court then turned to the trafficking by transportation charge, and rejected defendant’s argument that he did not knowingly transport the meth. The court noted transportation “requires a ‘substantial movement’ of contraband. . .[e]ven very slight movement may be real or substantial enough.” Id. at 10, quoting State v. McRae, 110 N.C. App. 643, 646 (1993). Here, detectives observed defendant drive the car with the meth from the hotel to a parking lot where he was arrested and the car was impounded. Although the meth was not immediately discovered, “[t]he fact that all the containers were not discovered until days later does not suggest a lack of knowledge given the hidden location of the packages and the Defendant’s knowledge of the location of and extraction method for the packages.” Id. at 11. 

Moving to defendant’s argument that the State presented insufficient evidence he kept or maintained a vehicle for controlled substances, the court explained that “[w]hether sufficient evidence was presented of the ‘keeping or maintaining’ element [of G.S. 90-108(a)(7)] depends upon a totality of the circumstances, and no single factor is determinative.” Id. at 12. Here, the court pointed to the evidence initially found inside the car along with defendant’s “knowledge and actions to access and dispose of the methamphetamine” later found inside the car as sufficient to support the conviction. Id. at 13. 

Finally, the court noted the evidence showing all the alleged co-conspirators found with meth after leaving the hotel, along with the currency and scales found with defendant, as supportive of the conspiracy to commit trafficking charge. 

In this Cleveland County case, defendant appealed his convictions for trafficking methamphetamine, arguing that his motion to dismiss should have been granted as he was not physically present when his travel companion was found in possession of the contraband. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

In February of 2020, an associate of defendant was arrested for possession of drugs and chose to assist police with their investigation of defendant in return for leniency. Defendant had asked the associate for assistance in bringing drugs from Georgia to North Carolina, and the police assisted the associate in developing a plan where they would drive together to pick up drugs for sale in North Carolina. The plan would conclude with the pair being pulled over as they re-entered the state. However, as the pair returned from Atlanta with the drugs, they became tired, and defendant called a female friend to assist them with driving from South Carolina to their destination in North Carolina. The female friend arrived with another woman, and the pair split up, leaving defendant’s associate in the car with the contraband and one woman, and defendant in a different car with the other woman. They were both pulled over when they passed into North Carolina, traveling three to five miles apart. At trial, defense counsel moved to dismiss the charges at the close of state’s evidence and again at the close of all evidence, but both motions were denied.

The Court of Appeals first explained that a person may be charged with a crime in North Carolina even if part of the crime occurred elsewhere, as long as at least one of the essential acts forming the crime occurred in North Carolina, and the person “has not been placed in jeopardy for the identical offense in another state.” Slip Op. at 5, quoting G.S. 15A-134. The court then moved to defendant’s arguments that he did not possess or transport the drugs while in North Carolina so he could not be charged with trafficking by possession or trafficking by transportation. 

Although defendant did not have actual possession of the drugs in North Carolina, the court noted that the “knowing possession” element of trafficking by possession could also be shown by proving that “the defendant acted in concert with another to commit the crime.” Slip Op. at 6, quoting State v. Reid, 151 N.C. App. 420, 428 (2002). Along with the evidence in the current case showing the defendant acted in concert with his associate, the trafficking charge required showing that defendant was present when the offense occurred. Here, after exploring the applicable case law, the court found that defendant was “constructively present” because, although “parties in the present case were a few miles away from each other, they were not so far away that defendant could not render aid or encouragement [to his associate].” Id. at 11. 

Moving to the trafficking by transportation charge, the court noted that “[a]s with trafficking by possession, ‘trafficking by transport can be proved by an acting in concert theory.’” Id. at 13, quoting State v. Ambriz, 880 S.E.2d 449, 459 (N.C. App. 2022). The court explained that “[f]or the same reasons we hold that defendant’s motion to dismiss the trafficking by possession charge was properly denied, we also hold that the motion to dismiss the trafficking by transportation charge was properly denied.” Id. 

The defendant in this case previously appealed his convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon, trafficking in heroin, PWISD cocaine, and attaining habitual felon status. The Court of Appeals found no error in State v. Wynn, 264 N.C. App. 250 (2019) (unpublished) (“Wynn I”).

The state Supreme Court granted a petition for discretionary review and remanded to the Court of Appeals for the limited purpose of reconsideration in light of State v. Golder, 347 N.C. 238 (2020) (holding that a motion to dismiss made “at the proper time preserved all issues related to the sufficiency of the evidence for appellate review”). Applying Golder to the case at hand, the appellate court reconsidered defendant’s argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidence at trial, which the court in Wynn I had ruled was not preserved at the trial level. The court began by rejecting the state’s argument that Golder was inapplicable because defense counsel in this case moved for a directed verdict, rather than making a motion to dismiss; the court held that in criminal cases the terms are used interchangeably and are reviewed in the same manner.

Turning to the substantive offenses, the court held that the motion to dismiss the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon should have been granted. No firearm was found in this case; the state’s primary evidence for possession of a firearm was the defendant’s statement to the officers that he had one before they arrived but he had dropped it. Applying the corpus delicti principle, the court held that a confession alone cannot support a conviction unless there is substantial independent evidence to establish the trustworthiness of the confession, including facts which strongly corroborate the essential facts and circumstances in the confession. In this case, the police found a 9mm magazine in a home the defendant had broken into, and also found 9mm shell casings and bullet holes in the defendant’s own home; however, the court pointed out that a magazine is not a firearm, and it was unknown who caused the bullet holes or when. Without some additional evidence (such as recovering the firearm, testimony from a witness who saw a firearm or heard gunshots, or evidence of injury to a person or property), the court concluded that there was insufficient corroboration of the confession and vacated the conviction.

On his convictions for trafficking heroin and PWISD cocaine, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence that he possessed the drugs, but the appellate court held that there was sufficient evidence to establish constructive possession. The drugs were found inside a house where the defendant was seen actively moving from room to room, indicating that had dominion over the space, and the drugs were packaged in red plastic baggies that the defendant was known to use for selling drugs. When the defendant exited the house he also had over $2,000 in cash on him and a white powdery substance in and on his nose. Taken together, these facts presented sufficient evidence to withstand a motion to dismiss regarding the defendant’s constructive possession of the controlled substances, and the convictions were affirmed. 

Finally, the court declined to revisit its earlier ruling on defendant’s argument concerning the admissibility of evidence under Rule 403 and 404, since the case was only remanded for reconsideration in light of Golder. “As such, the Supreme Court left, and we shall too, leave intact our prior analysis, regarding defendant’s second argument of evidence of other wrongs.”

In this possession of methamphetamine and felon in possession of a firearm case, the trial court did not err by instructing the jury that the defendant’s status as the driver of a stopped vehicle was sufficient to support an inference that he constructively possessed both methamphetamine and a firearm, even though another person was present in the vehicle. The defendant was stopped by officers while driving a beige Chevrolet pickup truck. Law enforcement had received drug complaints about a man named Sanchez. Officers conducted a two-hour surveillance of Sanchez and the defendant as they drove to several hotels in the area. Both Sanchez and the defendant were seen driving the truck during the two hour surveillance. Officers stopped the vehicle. The defendant was in the driver’s seat; Sanchez was in the passenger seat. A K-9 alert lead to a search of the vehicle. Officers found bags and backpacks in the truck bed that Sanchez stated belonged to him. While searching one of the backpacks they found pills and a notebook containing Sanchez’s name. Another backpack contained a compass with .2 g of a crystalline substance (later determined to be methamphetamine), a digital scale and counterweight, and a notebook containing entries in the defendant’s handwriting concerning the defendant’s wife. A revolver was found beneath the passenger seat. A later strip search of the defendant produced 39 pills, 15 of which were later determined to be diazepam. The defendant was indicted for possession of methamphetamine, possession of a firearm by a felon, and other charges. At the charge conference, the State requested an instruction stating that an inference of constructive possession can arise from evidence showing that a defendant was the custodian of a vehicle in which contraband was found. Over the defendant’s objection, the trial court gave the instruction. The defendant was found guilty and appealed.

            There was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of possession of methamphetamine. Because the methamphetamine was found in a backpack in the bed of the truck, the State was required to show constructive possession. As the vehicle’s driver, the defendant’s dominion and control over the truck is sufficient to give rise to an inference of constructive possession. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that his dominion and control over the truck was insufficient because he was not the only occupant of the vehicle. The court went on to conclude that while the defendant’s status as the driver might be sufficient to uphold his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, the State also presented additional incriminating evidence to support an inference of constructive possession. Specifically, the defendant’s frequent stops at hotels and gas stations, indicative of drug transactions; the defendant’s possession of other controlled substances; and that the backpack in which the methamphetamine was found contained the defendant’s personal belongings.

            The evidence was also sufficient to show constructive possession of the firearm. As with possession of a controlled substance, the defendant’s dominion and control as the driver of the truck was sufficient to give rise to an inference of constructive possession. The court again rejected the defendant’s argument that his non-exclusive control over the truck required the State to provide additional incriminating evidence. Again, however, even though the defendant’s status as the driver is sufficient to give rise to an inference of possession, the State presented additional incriminating evidence in this case including the defendant’s proximity to the firearm and his behavior consistent with the sale of drugs.

The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss charges of possession of stolen goods (a debit card) and possession of marijuana. The State presented substantial evidence establishing constructive possession of both the items. The items were found in close proximity to the defendant and his vehicle. Because of their proximity to the items, the defendant and his accomplices had the ability to exercise control over the contraband. Additionally, an officer spotted the defendant’s car and the suspects about one minute after receiving information from the Sheriff’s department about a robbery related to the charges at issue. The brief period between the robbery and locating the suspects with the stolen card supports an inference that the defendant knew of the robbery and the presence of the card. Based on the totality of the circumstances, there was substantial evidence that the defendant had constructive possession of the items.

In this possession of marijuana paraphernalia case, the State presented sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant constructively possessed a marijuana pipe found in a crashed vehicle. Although the defendant did not have exclusive possession of the vehicle, sufficient incriminating circumstances existed to establish constructive possession, including that the defendant was driving the vehicle; the pipe was found on the driver’s side floorboard; and the defendant admitted ownership of a small amount of marijuana found on his person.

(1) Because there was sufficient evidence that the defendant possessed drug paraphernalia, the trial court did not err by denying his motion to dismiss. The paraphernalia was found in plain view in a common living area of a home over which the defendant exercised nonexclusive control. The court found that following constituted “other incriminating circumstances” necessary to prove constructive possession: the defendant spent hours at the house on the day of the search; the defendant admitted that he had a “blunt” in the black truck parked in front of the house and the police found marijuana in the truck’s console; the police found marijuana in the house behind a photograph of the defendant; and several people visited the house while the defendant was there, including a man who shook hands with defendant “as if they were passing an item back and forth.” Of these facts, the most significant was that marijuana was found in a picture frame behind a photograph of the defendant. (2) Because there was insufficient evidence that the defendant constructively possessed marijuana found in an uncovered fishing boat located in the yard of a home occupied by multiple people, including the defendant, the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the drug possession charge. The boat was located roughly 70 feet from the side of the house, in a non-fenced area of the yard. There was no evidence that the defendant had any ownership interest in or possession of the boat and the defendant was never seen near the boat.  

In a possession of cocaine case, the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendant constructively possessed cocaine. The drugs were found on the ground near the rear driver’s side of the defendant’s car after an officer had struggled with the defendant. Among other things, video from the officer’s squad car showed that during the struggle the defendant dropped something that looked like an off-white rock near rear driver’s side of the vehicle. This and other facts constituted sufficient evidence of other incriminating circumstances to establish constructive possession.

(1) In a trafficking by possession case, there was sufficient evidence of constructive possession. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the State’s evidence showed only “mere proximity” to the drugs. Among other things, the defendant hid from the agents when they entered the warehouse; he was discovered alone in a tractor-trailer where money was hidden; no one else was discovered in the warehouse; the cocaine was found in a car parked, with its doors open, in close proximity to the tractor-trailer containing the cash; the cash and the cocaine were packaged similarly; wrappings were all over the tractor-trailer, in which the defendant was hiding, and in the open area of a car parked close by; the defendant admitted knowing where the money was hidden; and the entire warehouse had a chemical smell of cocaine. (2) Conspiracy to traffic in cocaine is not a lesser-included offense of trafficking in cocaine. The former offense requires an agreement; the latter does not.

There was sufficient evidence that the defendant had constructive possession of heroin found in an apartment that was not owned or rented by him. Evidence that the defendant was using the apartment included that he had a key to the apartment on his key ring, his clothing was found in the bedroom, he was seen entering and exiting the apartment shortly before the drug transaction, and he characterize the apartment as "where he was staying." Also, the defendant told the officer he had more heroin in the apartment and once inside lead them directly to it. The defendant also told the officers that his roommate was not involved with heroin and knew nothing of the defendant’s involvement with drugs.

In this drug trafficking case the court held that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of constructive possession of cocaine. Police had previously received a tip that drug sales were occurring at the home where the drugs were found; police later received similar information in connection with a DEA investigation; when officers went to the home the defendant admitted living there with his wife and children for three years, the defendant had a pistol, which he admitted having purchased illegally, ammunition, and more than $9,000.00 in cash in his closet; the defendant had more than $2,000 in cash on his person; almost 2 kilograms of powder cocaine worth more than $50,000 were found within easy reach of an opening leading from the hallway area to the attic; and the home small and had no residents other than the defendant and his family. 

In a trafficking case, the evidence was sufficient to show that the defendant constructively possessed cocaine found in a vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger. Another occupant in the vehicle testified that the cocaine belonged to the defendant, the cocaine was found in the vehicle “where [the defendant]’s feet would have been[,]” and, cocaine also was found on the defendant’s person.

There was sufficient evidence of constructive possession to sustain a conviction for possession with the intent to sell and deliver marijuana. The drugs were found in a vehicle being transported by a car carrier driven by the defendant. The court determined that based on the defendant’s power and control of the vehicle in which the drugs were found, an inference arose that he had knowledge their presence. The vehicle had been under the defendant’s exclusive control since it was loaded onto his car carrier two days earlier and the defendant had keys to every car on the carrier. Although the defendant’s possession of the vehicle was not exclusive because he did not own it, other evidence created an inference of his knowledge. Specifically, he acted suspiciously when stopped (held his hands up, nervous, sweating), he turned over a suspect bill of lading, and he had fully functional keys for all cars on the carrier except the one at issue for which he gave the officers a “fob” key which prevented its user from opening the trunk housing the marijuana.

There was sufficient evidence of constructive possession even though the defendant did not have exclusive control of the residence where the controlled substances were found. The defendant admitted that he resided there, officers found luggage, mail, and a cellular telephone connected to the defendant at the residence, the defendant’s car was in the driveway, and when the officers arrived, no one else was present. Additionally, the defendant was found pushing a trash can that contained the bulk of the marijuana seized, acted suspiciously when approached by the officers, and ran when an officer attempted to lift the lid. 

There was insufficient evidence that the defendant constructively possessed cocaine and drug paraphernalia. When officers announced their presence at a residence to be searched pursuant to a warrant, the defendant exited through a back door and was detained on the ground; crack cocaine was found on the ground near the defendant and drug paraphernalia was found in the house. As to the cocaine, the defendant did not have exclusive control of the house, which was rented by a third party, and there was insufficient evidence of other incriminating circumstances. The defendant did not rent the premises, no documents bearing his name were found there, none of his family lived there, and there was no evidence that he slept or lived at the home. The defendant’s connection to the paraphernalia was even weaker where no evidence connected the defendant to the paraphernalia or to the room where it was found. 

There was sufficient evidence of constructive possession of cocaine for purposes of charges of trafficking by possession, possession with intent, and possession of paraphernalia.