Smith's Criminal Case Compendium

Smith's Criminal Case Compendium

About

This compendium includes significant criminal cases by the U.S. Supreme Court & N.C. appellate courts, Nov. 2008 – Present. Selected 4th Circuit cases also are included.

Jessica Smith prepared case summaries Nov. 2008-June 4, 2019; later summaries are prepared by other School staff.

Instructions

Navigate using the table of contents to the left or by using the search box below. Use quotations for an exact phrase search. A search for multiple terms without quotations functions as an “or” search. Not sure where to start? The 5 minute video tutorial offers a guided tour of main features – Launch Tutorial (opens in new tab).

E.g., 10/03/2022
E.g., 10/03/2022

Affirming the opinion below, the court held that G.S. 90-95(h)(4) (trafficking in opium) applies in cases involving prescription pharmaceutical tablets and pills. The court reasoned that the statute explicitly provides that criminal liability is based on the total weight of the mixture involved and that tablets and pills are mixtures covered by that provision. 

The evidence was sufficient to prove a trafficking amount of methamphetamine. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the entire weight of a mixture containing methamphetamine at an intermediate stage in the manufacturing process cannot be used to support trafficking charges because the mixture is not ingestible, is unstable, and is not ready for distribution. The defendant admitted that the methamphetamine had already been formed in the liquid and it was only a matter of extracting it from the mixture. Also, the statute covers mixtures.

In a case in which the defendant was charged with trafficking in cocaine by manufacturing, the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to instruct the jury on manufacturing cocaine. The evidence showed that the defendant possessed cocaine and a mixture of cocaine and rice that exceeded the statutory trafficking amount. The defendant admitted to having mixed rice with the cocaine to remove moisture. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the combination of cocaine base and rice does not constitute a “mixture” as used in the trafficking statutes and concluded that the statutory reference to a “mixture” encompasses the mixture of a controlled substance with any other substance regardless of the reason for which that mixture was prepared.

The trial court did not err by allowing heroin recovered from the defendant's person outside the apartment to be combined with the heroin recovered from the apartment for the purposes of arriving at a trafficking amount for trafficking by possession. The defendant was observed entering the apartment immediately before his sale of 3.97 grams of heroin to an undercover officer. Upon arrest, the defendant said that he had more heroin in the apartment, and provided the key and consent for the officers to enter the apartment where 0.97 grams of additional heroin were recovered. This additional heroin was packaged for sale in the same manner as the heroin sold to the officer. The defendant admitted to being a drug dealer. There was no evidence any of the heroin was for the defendant's personal use. Under these circumstances, the defendant possessed the heroin in the apartment simultaneously with the heroin sold to the officer.

The evidence was insufficient to support the defendant’s methamphetamine trafficking convictions because G.S. 90-95(h)(3b) requires the state to prove the actual weight of the methamphetamine in a mixture. The defendant was convicted of trafficking by possession and manufacture of 400 grams or more methamphetamine. The state’s evidence consisted of 530 grams of a liquid that contained a detectable amount of methamphetamine. The exact amount of methamphetamine was not determined. The court noted that the trafficking statutes for methaqualone, cocaine, heroin, LSD, and MDA/MDMA specifically contain the clause “or mixture containing such substance,” whereas G.S. 90-95(h)(3b) for methamphetamine and as amphetamine does not contain that clause. [Author’s note: in 2009 the statute was revised to provide: “[a]ny person who sells, manufactures, delivers, transports, or possesses 28 grams or more of methamphetamine or any mixture containing such substance shall be guilty of a felony which felony shall be known as ‘trafficking in methamphetamine[.]’” (emphasis added).].

On appeal in this drug case from an unpublished opinion by the court of appeals, the supreme court held that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for conspiracy to traffic in opium. Specifically, the court pointed to evidence, detailed in the opinion, that the defendant agreed with another individual to traffic in opium by transportation. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the evidence showed only a “the mere existence of a relationship between two individuals” and not an unlawful conspiracy.

In this Wake County case, a drug investigator was working at a local FedEx facility and noticed a package from California with the seams taped shut and with an apparently fake phone number for the recipient. The officer removed the package from the conveyor belt and searched law enforcement databases for information on the sender and the recipient. He discovered that the telephone number for the sender listed on the package was incorrect, that the telephone number for the recipient was fictitious, and that the package had been mailed from a location other than the listed shipping address. The package was placed alongside several other similar packages and was examined by a drug dog already present in the facility. Following an alert by the canine, officer obtained a search warrant for the package. Inside, officers discovered packages of around 15 pounds of suspected marijuana, along with a GPS tracker. Officers visited the address of the recipient, where they noticed the defendant in the driveway. They also noted the presence of a storage unit facility nearby and later learned the defendant rented a unit there. A man (apparently the sender) called the FedEx facility to inquire about the status of the package. An officer called him back, first verifying the intended address and recipient of the package and then identifying himself as law enforcement. The man on the phone cursed and ended the call. The next day, officers visited the storage facility near the defendant’s home with a canine unit, which alerted to a certain unit. While officers were obtaining a search warrant for the unit, the defendant arrived on scene holding a bag. Officers saw what they believed to be marijuana extract or “wax” inside the bag and placed the defendant under arrest. Once the search warrant for the storage unit was approved, officers discovered more apparent marijuana and marijuana extract inside. Search warrants for the defendant’s house were then obtained, leading to the discovery of marijuana paraphernalia and a substance used to produce marijuana extract. 

The defendant was charged with conspiracy to traffic marijuana, possession with intent to sell/deliver marijuana and possession with intent to sell/deliver THC (among other related offenses). The defendant moved to suppress, arguing that the seizure of the package at the FedEx facility was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant was convicted of trafficking and other offenses at trial. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of his suppression motion, the denial of his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, the admission of lay opinions identifying the substances in the case as marijuana, marijuana wax, and THC, and the admission of the phone call between the officer and the man who called the FedEx facility inquiring about the package. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

(1) The court rejected the argument that the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the seizure of the package and canine sniff at the FedEx facility. “[W]e do not accept Defendant’s initial contention that the mere removal of the target package from the conveyor belt for a drug dog sniff was a ‘seizure’ implicating his Fourth Amendment rights. Neither was the drug dog sniff a ‘search. . .’” Teague Slip op. at ¶13. While both the sender and recipient of a mailed package have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of a package, the temporary detention and investigation of the package in a manner that does not significantly delay its delivery does not amount to a Fourth Amendment seizure. Officers here had reasonable suspicion to justify a brief investigation and dog sniff of the package. From there, officers properly obtained search warrants of the package, which led to additional search warrants supported by probable cause. Thus, the acts of removing the package for investigation and subjecting it to a canine sniff did not implicate the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights and he lacked standing to challenge those actions. [Judge Dillon concurred with the Court’s opinion in full but wrote separately to state his belief that, to the extent the Fourth Amendment was implicated, the defendant had standing despite his subsequent disavowal of ownership of the package at trial. Judge Collins wrote separately to concur in the result only and would have held that the defendant had standing.] 

(2) Assuming arguendo that the defendant had standing to challenge the investigation of his package at the FedEx facility, he failed to preserve those arguments for appellate review. While the defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress and fully litigated those issues (including objecting to the canine alert evidence at trial), he failed to object to testimony at trial about the removal of the package from the conveyor belt for additional investigation. Appellate review of that issue was therefore waived. The dog sniff on its own did not amount to a search, given it took place at the FedEx facility while the item was “still in the mail stream” and was completed within ten minutes. “…Defendant’s renewed objection at trial to the introduction of . . . the dog sniff was insufficient to resurrect any prior unpreserved Fourth Amendment argument for appellate review.” Id. at 26. The trial court also did not plainly err by denying the suppression motion for the same reasons—the defendant lacked standing to bring a Fourth Amendment challenge and failed to preserve any such challenge even if he had standing. 

Regarding the defendant’s other challenges, the court noted the continued ambiguity surrounding the impact of hemp legalization on marijuana prosecutions, citing State v. Parker, 277 N.C. App. 531 (2021). It nonetheless observed that the now-defunct Industrial Hemp Act, “in and of itself, did not modify the State’s burden of proof at the various stages of our criminal proceedings.” Teague Slip op. at ¶33. 

(3) The defendant argued that the indictment charging him with possession with intent to sell/deliver THC was fatally defective for failure to state a crime because the indictment failed to specify that the THC possessed by the defendant contained a delta-9 THC concentration of more than 0.3%. The court rejected this argument, finding that the concentration of delta-9 THC is not an element of the crime and that the then-applicable Industrial Hemp Act did not remove THC from the list of prohibited controlled substances under Chapter 90 of the North Carolina General Statues. The defendant has the burden under G.S. 90-113.1 to prove lawful possession of a controlled substance, which is an exception to the prohibitions on controlled substances and (again) not an element of the offense. [The prohibition on possession of THC in G.S. 90-94 has since been amended to explicitly exclude THC found in hemp or hemp products, removing all hemp-based THCs from the list of controlled substances in Chapter 90].

(4) The trial correctly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of possession with intent to sell/deliver THC for insufficient evidence. The defendant pointed to the lack of any chemical analysis for the brown marijuana “wax” and argued that the State failed to present proof that the substance was an illegal controlled substance in light of the existence of legal hemp. The court found that the brown material did not qualify as industrial hemp under the then-existing definition but met the definition of THC in place at the time. “The brown material was neither a part nor a variety of the plant Cannabis sativa.” Teague Slip op. at ¶38. Moreover, even if the material did qualify as a part of the plant, “Defendant makes no argument that he was a ‘grower licensed by the Commission’, or that the brown material was cultivated by such a licensed grower, as the statutory definition of ‘industrial hemp’ requires.” Id. at 39. In the light most favorable to the State, there was therefore sufficient evidence that the brown material was THC, and the motion was properly denied. [Industrial hemp is no longer defined under state law and has been replaced by new state definitions for marijuana, hemp and hemp products, as linked in the paragraph above and as discussed here. Under the new definitions, hemp is defined to include all extracts and derivatives of hemp, and hemp products are defined as anything made from hemp.]

(5) The defendant argued that the legalization of hemp in the state undercut the justifications in the decisions allowing the lay identification of marijuana without the need for a chemical analysis. See, e.g., State v. Mitchell, 224 N.C. App. 171, 179 (2013). Assuming without deciding that the trial court erred in admitting this testimony in violation of N.C. Evid. R. 702, the defendant could not show prejudice. The flower marijuana in the package was properly lab-tested and found to contain illegal levels of delta-9 THC. While the brown wax material was tested only for the presence of delta-9 THC and not for specific levels of THC, the material again did not qualify as industrial hemp under the then-existing definition. While other flower material found in the storage shed was likewise only tested for the presence of THC (and not for quantified THC levels), here there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Given the marijuana that was properly tested, along with the discovery of other drugs and drug paraphernalia at the defendant’s house, storage unit, and in the bag that the defendant was carrying when he encountered officers at the storage unit (among other evidence), there was no reasonable likelihood of a different result at trial had this identification testimony been excluded. 

(6) There was also sufficient evidence supporting the defendant’s conviction for conspiring to traffic marijuana by transportation, and the trial court did not err in admitting a recording of the phone call between the apparent sender of the package and the law enforcement officer. The shipping label accurately named the defendant and his address, and the sender acknowledged that information on the call with the officer. The sender was also upset upon learning that the package had been intercepted by law enforcement. Additionally, the drugs in the package were worth more than $150,00.00 and included a GPS tracking device. This was sufficient to show the defendant and co-conspirator’s “mutual concern for and interest in” the package, thus providing sufficient evidence of the conspiracy. Id. at 48. The phone call between the sender of the package and law enforcement was properly admitted under the hearsay exception for statements of co-conspirators under N.C. Evid. R. 801(d)(E). The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the statement at issue here did not qualify under that exception because it was not a statement made between the conspirators. The court observed:

"[W]hen the State has introduced prima facie evidence of a conspiracy, the acts and declarations of each party to it in furtherance of its objectives are admissible against the other members regardless of their presence or absence at the time the acts and declarations were done or uttered. Teague Slip op. at ¶50 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original)."

There was therefore sufficient evidence of the conspiracy conviction and no error in admission of the phone call between law enforcement and the co-conspirator. 

The evidence was sufficient to show a drug trafficking conspiracy where there was evidence of an implied agreement between the defendant and his accomplice. The defendant was present at the scene and aware that his accomplice was involved producing methamphetamine and there was sufficient evidence that the defendant himself was involved in the manufacturing process. The court concluded: “Where two subjects are involved together in the manufacture of methamphetamine and the methamphetamine recovered is enough to sustain trafficking charges, we hold the evidence sufficient to infer an implied agreement between the subjects to traffic in methamphetamine by manufacture and withstand a motion to dismiss.”

The term “deliver,” used in the trafficking statutes, is defined by G.S. 90-87(7) to “mean[] the actual constructive, or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance, whether or not there is an agency relationship.” Thus, an actual delivery is not required. In a prosecution under G.S. 90-95, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that an exemption applies, such as possession pursuant to a valid prescription. In this case, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss and properly submitted to the jury the issue of whether the defendant was authorized to possess the controlled substances.

(1) The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to instruct the jury that to convict the defendant for trafficking by compounding it had to find he did so with an intent to distribute. Because the evidence showed that the defendant also manufactured by packaging and repackaging, the court concluded that the defendant failed to establish that a different outcome would probably have been reached had the instruction at issue been delivered at trial. (2) The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to show trafficking in cocaine by manufacture. Where officers find cocaine or a cocaine-related mixture and an array of items used to package and distribute that substance, the evidence suffices to support a manufacturing conviction. Here, State’s evidence showed that more than 28 grams of cocaine and several items that are commonly used to weigh, separate, and package cocaine for sale were seized from the defendant’s bedroom.

 (No. COA10-534). The trial court erred by submitting to the jury the charge of possession with intent to manufacture cocaine because it is not a lesser-included offense of the charged crime of trafficking by possession of cocaine. However, possession of cocaine is a lesser of the charged offense; because the jury convicted on possession with intent to manufacture, the court remanded for entry of judgment on possession of cocaine.

No double jeopardy violation occurred when the defendant was convicted of trafficking in methamphetamine, manufacturing methamphetamine, and possession of methamphetamine based on the same illegal substance.

Show Table of Contents