State v. McNeil, COA 23-977, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Jun. 4, 2024)

In this Randolph County case, defendant appealed his conviction for trafficking methamphetamine by possession, arguing error in denying his motion to dismiss and denying his request for a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of attempted trafficking. The Court of Appeals found no error.

In October of 2019, a detective for the Asheboro Police Department learned that the Department of Homeland Security had intercepted a package testing positive for liquid methamphetamine. The detective and other officers set up a plan to execute a controlled delivery of the package, and when the package was delivered, a resident of the home called defendant to come and retrieve his package. When defendant arrived, he was arrested. Subsequently, two more packages arrived at the home containing marijuana, and defendant pleaded guilty to charges related to those packages. The guilty plea transcript was admitted into evidence in the current case. After the close of State’s evidence, defendant moved to dismiss the charges against him, and the trial court dismissed one charge of trafficking by transportation, but denied the motion for the trafficking by possession charge. Defendant was subsequently convicted, and appealed. 

Beginning with defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals first reviewed the precedent around constructive possession, as defendant argued he never possessed or controlled the package of methamphetamine as he was arrested before he could retrieve it from the home. The court found sufficient constructive possession, explaining “[d]efendant was within close juxtaposition to the seized package; had knowledge about the details of the delivery, including the carrier service and name on the package; arrived at the house as soon as he learned it had been delivered; and had subsequent packages containing contraband sent to the house.” Slip Op. at 9. 

The court then considered the jury instruction argument, noting that the plain error standard applied as defendant did not object to the instructions at trial. Here, the State presented sufficient evidence of all elements of the offense as noted in the constructive possession discussion, and “an attempt instruction was not required as the offense was complete when Defendant arrived at the house and walked through the door.” Id. at 11.