STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Surry County
No. 05 CRS 1619
JACK LEE JOYNER, SR.
STEELMAN, Judge.
On 20 July 2005, a jury found defendant, Jack Lee Joyner, Sr.,
guilty of possession with intent to sell cocaine and sale of
cocaine. The trial court sentenced defendant to twelve to fifteen
months imprisonment for the sale of cocaine conviction and arrested
judgment on the possession with intent to sell cocaine conviction.
Defendant appeals.
The State's evidence at trial tended to show the following:
On 9 May 2002, Winston-Salem Police Officer Allison Trivette was
working as an undercover officer in the vice and narcotics unit.
On this particular day, she was working in Surry County assistingits detectives in attempting to purchase narcotics from known drug
dealers. Officer Trivette drove to a specific residence looking
for a person named “Jack.” When she arrived, she observed two
people outside the residence, one of whom was later identified as
defendant. Defendant approached Officer Trivette's vehicle and she
informed him she wanted to purchase $40.00 of crack. Defendant
entered the residence. Upon exiting the residence, he stopped by
a vehicle in the front yard before returning to her vehicle.
Defendant handed Officer Trivette the crack cocaine, which was
wrapped in aluminum foil, and she paid him $40.00.
Officer Trivette then met Surry County Detectives Matt
Darisse, Tracey Hyson, and another detective at a prearranged
location. Officer Trivette gave the suspected crack cocaine to
Detective Hyson, who placed it in a plastic bag. Officer Trivette
and Detective Hyson both initialed the bag, which was then sealed.
Detective Hyson marked the case number, the date, and the suspect's
name on the front of the bag. Officer Trivette thereafter gave
Detective Darisse a description of defendant and identified
defendant from a photograph as the person who sold her the crack
cocaine.
Detective Darisse, a detective sergeant in the narcotics
division of the Surry County Sheriff's Department, testified he had
arranged for Officer Trivette to come to Surry County on 9 May 2002to attempt to purchase narcotics from a list of individuals known
for selling or using controlled substances. The name Jack Joyner
was on the list. He further testified he observed Officer Trivette
deliver the substance she purchased from defendant to Detective
Hyson, who subsequently moved to Florida. Detective Darisse also
observed Detective Hyson place the substance into a plastic bag and
mark it. At Detective Darisse's instruction, Detective Hyson sent
the sealed plastic bag containing the substance to the State Bureau
of Investigation (SBI) laboratory for analysis. The envelope in
which the substance was sent to the SBI was marked with the case
number. When the envelope containing the substance was returned to
the Surry County Sheriff's Department, Detective Darisse opened it
and placed it in an evidence locker.
Special Agent Nancy Gregory, a forensic drug chemist at the
SBI crime laboratory in Raleigh, testified she received the
suspected controlled substance from the Surry County Sheriff's
Department on 14 May 2002 in a sealed plastic bag that arrived in
an envelope. The envelope was introduced into evidence as State's
Exhibit 4-A. Agent Gregory testified the suspect's name written on
the plastic bag containing the controlled substance was “Jack
Joyner.” She further testified she analyzed the substance and
determined it to be 0.3 grams of a schedule two controlled
substance, cocaine base, which is commonly known as crack cocaine. After completing her analysis, Agent Gregory sealed State's Exhibit
4-A with her initials, date, and case number. Agent Gregory also
prepared a laboratory report of her analysis. Information
regarding the case, including the submitting officer's name, the
suspect's name, the case number, and date of the offense, was
located at the top of the laboratory report. There was also a
subject line on the laboratory report, which identified the suspect
as “Jack Joyner, Jr.” Agent Gregory testified the information
contained in the subject line of the laboratory report was taken
directly from the subject line of a “Request for Information of
Physical Evidence,” which is an internal document that is submitted
to the SBI laboratory when evidence is analyzed.
Defendant made four assignments of error in this case.
However, he only argued his fourth assignment of error in his
brief. Pursuant to Rule 28(b)(6) of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure, the other three assignments of error are deemed
abandoned.
In his forth assignment of error, defendant contends the trial
court erred in denying his motions to dismiss at the close of the
State's evidence and at the close of all the evidence based on
insufficiency of the evidence. A motion to dismiss should be
denied if “there is substantial evidence '(1) of each essential
element of the offense charged . . ., and (2) of defendant's beingthe perpetrator of such offense.'” State v. Barnes, 334 N.C. 67,
75, 430 S.E.2d 914, 918 (1993) (citations omitted). When reviewing
a motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of the evidence, this
Court must:
view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the State, giving the State the benefit of
all reasonable inferences. Contradictions and
discrepancies do not warrant dismissal of the
case but are for the jury to resolve. . . .
Once the court decides that a reasonable
inference of defendant's guilt may be drawn
from the circumstances, then it is for the
jury to decide whether the facts, taken singly
or in combination, satisfy [it] beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant is
actually guilty.
Id. at 75-76, 430 S.E.2d at 918-19 (internal citations and
quotations omitted)(emphasis and alteration in original). The test
for sufficiency of the evidence is the same whether the evidence is
direct, circumstantial, or both. Id. at 75, 430 S.E.2d at 918-19.
Defendant makes two arguments in support of his position.
First, he argues there was insufficient evidence to establish he
was the perpetrator of the crimes charged. Defendant argues that
suspicions were raised about the identity of the perpetrator
because the name of the suspect on the subject line of the SBI
laboratory report was “Jack Joyner, Jr.” and not “Jack Joyner, Sr.”
In support of his argument, defendant also cites to Detective
Darisse's testimony that Jack Joyner, Jr., defendant's son, wasknown by Detective Darisse to be involved in narcotics.
The evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the
State and giving the State the benefit of every reasonable
inference that may be drawn from the evidence, shows that Officer
Trivette positively identified defendant as the person who sold her
the cocaine immediately after the transaction and again at trial.
Officer Trivette also gave a description of defendant to Detective
Darisse immediately after the transaction and identified
defendant's photograph on the date of the offenses. Further, the
name of the suspect listed on the evidence itself is “Jack
Joyner[.]” Accordingly, we conclude there was sufficient evidence
from which the jury could find that defendant, and not his son, was
the perpetrator of the offenses charged. Any conflict in the
evidence regarding the name of the suspect as “Jack Joyner, Jr.” on
the SBI laboratory report was an issue for the jury to resolve.
Defendant next contends the trial court erred in denying his
motion to dismiss because there was insufficient evidence
establishing the chain of custody of the cocaine. The basis for
this argument is that the State allegedly failed to establish a
detailed chain of custody of the cocaine because Detective Hyson,
the detective who sent the cocaine to the SBI laboratory, did not
testify at trial and the State did not submit a statement from her.
A motion to dismiss challenges the sufficiency of all theevidence, not just one particular piece of evidence. See Barnes,
334 N.C. at 75-76, 430 S.E.2d at 918-19. In the instant case,
defendant essentially challenges the admissibility of a particular
piece of evidence on the basis of the chain of custody, not the
sufficiency of all the evidence. The matter of whether there are
weak links in the chain of custody relate to the weight of the
evidence, not its admissibility, and is for the jury to determine.
State v. Zuniga, 320 N.C. 233, 255, 357 S.E.2d 898, 913 (1987).
The proper basis for such an objection and appeal would have been
that the evidence was improperly admitted, not a motion to dismiss.
At trial, defendant did not object to the admission of the
plastic bag, which contained a piece of aluminum foil and the crack
cocaine Officer Trivette purchased from defendant. Therefore, our
review is limited to plain error. N.C. R. App. P. 10(c)(4).
Although defendant asserts in the correlating assignment of error
contained in the record on appeal that the error amounted to plain
error, defendant failed to argue in his brief that admission of the
evidence amounted to plain error. N.C. R. App. P. 28(a), (b)(6).
Accordingly, defendant has waived appellate review of this
assignment of error.
NO ERROR.
Judges MCCULLOUGH and HUDSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***