Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 30 April 2002 by
Judge Steve Balog in Alamance County Superior Court. Heard in the
Court of Appeals 2 June 2003.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General J.
Bruce McKinney, for the State.
Charns & Charns, by D. Tucker Charns, for defendant-appellant.
TYSON, Judge.
Sharon Brincefield (“defendant”) was found guilty of felony
possession of cocaine and was sentenced to 6 to 8 months. The
sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for 36
months. We find no error.
I. Background
The State presented evidence which tended to show that on 24
October 2001, officers of the Alamance County Sheriff's Department
executed a search warrant on premises located at 2273 Willie Pace
Road, Lot No. 5, in Alamance County. When officers entered the
premises, defendant, two young males identified as her sons,
another female, and a baby were present. An officer found “[a]
small off-white substance in the corner of [a dresser drawer],”subsequently identified as cocaine, in the master bedroom of the
residence. The dresser drawer also contained women's
undergarments. The officers found a telephone bill in defendant's
name in the master bedroom, tucked between the mattress and box
springs.
II. Issues
Defendant contends (1) the trial court committed plain error
by failing to object
ex mero motu when the State elicted testimony
regarding the use of a search warrant, and (2) the trial court
erred by denying her motion to dismiss the charge for insufficient
evidence.
III. Failure to object
Defendant argues that although the search warrant itself was
not introduced into evidence, the jury heard evidence that a
magistrate signed the search warrant based upon information
supplied to the magistrate, that included photographs.
By her failure to object to admission of the evidence,
defendant waived appellate review of this issue. N.C. R. App. P.
10(b)(1) (2002). To obtain appellate relief, defendant must show
plain error.
State v. Black, 308 N.C. 736, 740, 303 S.E.2d 804,
807 (1983). “[D]efendant must convince this Court not only that
there was error, but that absent the error, the jury probably would
have reached a different result.”
State v. Jordan, 333 N.C. 431,
440, 426 S.E.2d 692, 697 (1993).
We are not convinced. The
evidence is uncontradicted that the officers found the contraband
in defendant's bedroom. It is not probable that the jury wouldhave reached a different verdict had this evidence not been
admitted.
IV. Motion to Dismiss
Defendant contends the court erred by denying her motion to
dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence. In ruling on a
motion to dismiss, the trial court determines whether the State has
presented substantial evidence of each element of the offense and
of perpetration of the offense by the accused.
State v. Small, 328
N.C. 175, 180, 400 S.E.2d 413, 415 (1991).
The trial court must
examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,
giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference that may be
drawn from the evidence.
State v. Benson, 331 N.C. 537, 544, 417
S.E.2d 756, 761 (1992). If the evidence is sufficient to allow the
jury to draw a reasonable inference of the defendant's guilt of the
crime charged, the case should be submitted to the jury.
State v.
Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 67, 296 S.E.2d 649, 652 (1982).
Possession of a controlled substance may be actual or
constructive.
State v. Perry, 316 N.C. 87, 96, 340 S.E.2d 450, 456
(1986). “A person is in constructive possession of a thing when,
while not having actual possession, he has the intent and
capability to maintain control and dominion over that thing."
State v. Beaver, 317 N.C. 643, 648, 346 S.E.2d 476, 480 (1986).
"Where such materials are found on the premises under the control
of an accused, this fact, in and of itself, gives rise to an
inference of knowledge and possession which may be sufficient to
carry the case to the jury on a charge of unlawful possession."
State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1, 12, 187 S.E.2d 706, 714 (1972).
Here, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the
State shows that defendant resided in the residence with her two
young sons. The contraband was found in a dresser in defendant's
bedroom among women's clothing. We hold this evidence sufficient
to withstand defendant's motion to dismiss.
No error.
Judges WYNN and STEELMAN concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***