Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
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).
In this Union County case, defendant appealed his conviction for misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, arguing insufficient evidence that he intended to use the paraphernalia, a pipe, for a controlled substance other than marijuana. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding no error.
Defendant was arrested after an encounter in September 2021 where police officers thought defendant and his two acquaintances were shoplifting from a local Belk. The officers did not find any store merchandise, but while searching one of the acquaintances, the officers found a medicine bottle with small baggies filled with a brown powder. Defendant ran from the officers, throwing a bottle that also contained the brown powdery substance. When defendant was detained, officers found a glass pipe, red straw, and plastic baggies containing power on his person. The brown substance was confirmed to be heroin after testing. Defendant came to trial on charges of felony trafficking in heroin by possession and transporting, as well as the misdemeanor charge. Defendant moved to dismiss the misdemeanor, but the trial court denied the motion, and defendant was subsequently convicted.
On appeal, defendant pointed to G.S. 90-113.22, which makes it a misdemeanor offense to “knowingly use, or to possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to . . . inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the body a controlled substance other than marijuana which it would be unlawful to possess.” Slip Op. at 5. Defendant argued insufficient evidence to show he intended to use the pipe for a controlled substance other than marijuana. The Court of Appeals noted a lack of controlling authority, but looked to State v. Gamble, 218 N.C. App. 456, 2012 WL 380251 (2012) (unpublished), and State v. Harlee, 180 N.C. App. 692, 2006 WL 3718084 (2006) (unpublished), for guidance regarding circumstances that supported intent with paraphernalia like crack pipes. The court found similar support here, as the pipe was found in the same pocket of defendant’s pants as the baggies of heroin, and the pipe was visibly charred, showing previous use.
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.
The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia. When the arresting officer approached the vehicle, the defendant was sitting in the back seat and did not immediately show his hands at the officer’s request. Officers subsequently found the glass pipe on the rear floor board of the seat where the defendant was sitting. The defendant admitted that he smoked methamphetamine out of the pipe while in the car. Additionally Fisher testified that the pipe belonged to the defendant and the defendant had been carrying it in his pocket.
Where a drug paraphernalia indictment charged the defendant with possession of plastic baggies used to package and repackage pills but the State introduced no evidence of plastic baggies at trial, the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss. At trial, the State’s evidence showed that the defendant used a bottle to deliver the pills. The court stated: “We hold that the specific items alleged to be drug paraphernalia must be enumerated in the indictment, and that evidence of such items must be presented at trial.”