STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Haywood County
No. 05 CRS 50052
RICHARD MICHAEL REECE
05 CRS 50054-55
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney
General Kathryn Jones Cooper, for the State
Janna D. Allison for defendant-appellant.
LEVINSON, Judge.
On 28 February 2005, defendant Richard Michael Reece was
indicted for felony possession of marijuana, possession of drug
paraphernalia, possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana,
and maintaining a vehicle that was used for keeping or selling a
controlled substance.
The case was tried at the 28 September 2005
Criminal Session of Haywood County Superior Court.
The State presented evidence at trial which tended to show the
following:
On 6 January 2005, Detective Kenny Aldridge of the
Waynesville Police Department went to the First Baptist parking lot
on South Main Street in Waynesville, North Carolina. Detective
Aldridge located a red, older model Chevrolet pickup truck and ranthe tag number on the vehicle. The tag came back as being
registered to the defendant. Detective Aldridge looked into the
vehicle and saw a white towel behind the driver's side seat with
what appeared to be a “long gun on top of it.” Detective Aldridge
called Detective Ryan Singleton to assist him, and also called
Officer Brandon Gilmore and his canine unit dog to come out and
sniff the car for drugs. Officer Gilmore came out, his dog sniffed
the truck but it did not “hit” for any drugs.
Detective Aldridge knew the defendant by his nickname “Daffy”.
Detectives Aldridge and Singleton walked across the street towards
a construction site to see if they could locate the defendant.
Detective Aldridge observed defendant come out of the construction
site's office and head toward the site. Detective Aldridge said,
“Daffy, I've got some information that there's drugs in your truck”
and asked him if he could look in his vehicle for marijuana.
Defendant denied having any drugs, saying, “Kenny, I haven't done
that in years.” Detective Aldridge replied that he still wanted to
look in his truck. Defendant asked Detective Aldridge if he had a
search warrant, and then took him to a truck provided to him by his
employer. Detective Aldridge told defendant that was not the truck
he wanted to look into, he wanted to look in his personal truck
across the street. Defendant led the detectives across the street,
unlocked the red truck and pushed the front seat forward so they
could look inside. Detective Singleton searched defendant's
vehicle and found the white towel with the shotgun laying on top of
it. Detective Singleton also found wrapped up inside the whitetowel a box of plastic baggies, scales, and marijuana.
Defendant was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia,
possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana and maintaining
a vehicle that was used for keeping or selling a controlled
substance. The convictions were consolidated for judgment and
defendant was sentenced to a term of six to eight months
imprisonment. Defendant's sentence was suspended and he was placed
on supervised probation for thirty-six months.
Defendant appeals.
Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that there was
insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions. Specifically,
defendant contends that he did not have exclusive possession of the
truck, and there were no incriminating circumstances to constitute
constructive possession.
After careful review of the record, briefs and contentions of
the parties, we find no error.
To survive a motion to dismiss, the
State must present substantial evidence of each essential element
of the charged offense. State v. Cross, 345 N.C. 713, 716-17, 483
S.E.2d 432, 434 (1997). “'Substantial evidence is relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion.'” Id. at 717, 483 S.E.2d at 434 (quoting State v.
Olson, 330 N.C. 557, 564, 411 S.E.2d 592, 595 (1992)).
Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to sell or
deliver marijuana. Under the theory of constructive possession, a
person may be charged with possession of an item such as narcotics:
when he has both the power and intent to
control its disposition or use. The
requirements of power and intent necessarily
imply that a defendant must be aware of thepresence of an illegal drug if he is to be
convicted of possessing it. When such
materials are found on the premises under the
control of the 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. Weldon, 314 N.C. 401, 403, 333 S.E.2d 701, 702-03
(1985)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)(emphasis
added). Here, the truck was registered to defendant and was
located across the street from the construction site where he
worked. Defendant possessed a key which he used to unlock the
truck for the detectives, and then pushed the front seat forwards
and gave consent to their search of the vehicle. There was no
evidence presented that anybody else had access to or control of
the vehicle other than the defendant. Therefore, we conclude that
in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence permits an
inference that defendant possessed the marijuana, baggies and
scales.
Accordingly, we find no error.
No error
Judges TYSON and BRYANT concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***