An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Proced ure.

NO. COA02-1604


Filed: 19 August 2003


         v.                        Greene County
                                Nos. 00 CRS 185
SCOTT E. MAYE                            02 CRS 389

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 15 August 2002 by Judge Thomas D. Haigwood in Superior Court, Greene County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 August 2003.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General William H. Borden, for the State.

    Paul T. Cleavenger for defendant-appellant.

    McGEE, Judge.

    A jury found defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance on the premises of a penal institution. Upon his guilty plea to habitual felon status, the trial court entered judgment on 15 August 2002, sentencing defendant to 80 to 105 months' imprisonment. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court.
    In his sole assignment of error on appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony of Special Agent Timothy Suggs (Agent Suggs) of the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), who worked in the SBI's drug chemistry section in Raleigh. Testifying as an expert in forensic chemistry, it was Agent Suggs' expert opinion that the vegetable matter found indefendant's prison dormitory locker on 17 January 2000 was marijuana. Agent Suggs based his opinion on the results of laboratory tests performed by SBI Special Agent Shawn Lee (Agent Lee). Agent Suggs affirmed that Agent Lee performed a microscopic examination, as well as the Duquonois Levine color test, which were the methods for detecting marijuana "reasonably relied upon by experts in this field." Agent Suggs further testified that all of the chemists in the SBI lab "received training in the analysis of marijuana" and that Agent Lee was qualified to perform the tests in question.
    Defendant argues that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by allowing Agent Suggs to give expert testimony based upon lab tests conducted by Agent Lee. However, defendant raised only generalized objections at trial which were insufficient to preserve this issue for our review. State v. Williams, 355 N.C. 501, 576-77, 565 S.E.2d 609, 652 (2002) (quoting State v. Jones, 342 N.C. 523, 535-36, 467 S.E.2d 12, 20 (1996)), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 154 L. Ed. 2d 808 (2003). Defendant also did not raise his constitutional claim before the trial court and cannot do so for the first time on appeal. See State v. Fernandez, 346 N.C. 1, 18, 484 S.E.2d 350, 361 (1997) (citing State v. Jaynes, 342 N.C. 249, 263, 464 S.E.2d 448, 457 (1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1024, 135 L. Ed. 2d 1080 (1996); N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1)). Finally, Agent Suggs' reliance upon Agent Lee's test results did not violate defendant's right to confrontation, in that Agent Suggs was subject to cross-examination. State v. Jones, 322 N.C. 406, 414, 368 S.E.2d 844, 848-49 (1988) (quoting State v. Huffstetler, 312 N.C. 92, 108, 322 S.E. 2d 110, 120-21 (1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1009, 85 L. Ed. 2d 169 (1985)). The trial court did not err in admitting Suggs' testimony.
    No error.
    Judges HUDSON and GEER concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***