{ "id": 8527646, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLARENCE J. HUNTER and JOE McCRAY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hunter", "decision_date": "1992-09-15", "docket_number": "No. 9112SC717", "first_page": "402", "last_page": "413", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "107 N.C. App. 402" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "57 ALR3d 1319", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "348 S.E.2d 791", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "793" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4731290 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "403" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "389 S.E.2d 48", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "54" }, { "page": "54" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5306215 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "278-79" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "391 U.S. 123", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1767670 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "135-36" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/391/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E.2d 860", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "865" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574388 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "306" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 S.E.2d 502", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "508" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 405", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572569 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "415" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0405-01" ] }, { "cite": "304 S.E.2d 759", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 679", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4705185, 4708995, 4708841, 4705295, 4706902 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0679-05", "/nc/308/0679-02", "/nc/308/0679-01", "/nc/308/0679-04", "/nc/308/0679-03" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E.2d 9", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "14" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 N.C. App. 604", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523101 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "610" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/60/0604-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-113.22", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 5, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(h)(3)(b)", "parenthetical": "1990 & Supp. 1991" }, { "page": "(h)(3)(b)" }, { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(h)(l)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 S.E.2d 883", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "886" }, { "page": "886" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "70 N.C. App. 82", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520404 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "85" }, { "page": "85" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/70/0082-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E.2d 779", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "784" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573959 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "129" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 S.E.2d 357", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 760", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8576876, 8576910, 8576855, 8576891, 8576927 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0760-02", "/nc/281/0760-04", "/nc/281/0760-01", "/nc/281/0760-03", "/nc/281/0760-05" ] }, { "cite": "189 S.E.2d 763", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "764" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 N.C. App. 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548381 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "174" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/15/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 S.E.2d 359", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 762", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8577027, 8577060, 8577095, 8577040, 8577077 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0762-01", "/nc/281/0762-03", "/nc/281/0762-05", "/nc/281/0762-02", "/nc/281/0762-04" ] }, { "cite": "189 S.E.2d 807", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "808" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 N.C. App. 282", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549891 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "283" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/15/0282-01" ] }, { "cite": "277 S.E.2d 376", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "384" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571418 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "87" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "402 S.E.2d 845", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "847" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "102 N.C. App. 541", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525001 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "544" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/102/0541-01" ] }, { "cite": "333 S.E.2d 708", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "714" }, { "page": "715" }, { "page": "715" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 337", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4695126 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "344" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0337-01" ] }, { "cite": "412 U.S. 218", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6172008 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/412/0218-01" ] }, { "cite": "246 S.E.2d 159", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "163" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 N.C. App. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552523 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "321" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/37/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 U.S. 420", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11338811 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "439" }, { "page": "334" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/468/0420-01" ] }, { "cite": "460 U.S. 491", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6195479 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "500" }, { "page": "238" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/460/0491-01" ] }, { "cite": "290 S.E.2d 574", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "583" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570930 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "410" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 L.Ed.2d 477", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "421 U.S. 987", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 541890, 541282, 541378, 541959, 541706, 541194, 541102, 541363, 541241 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/421/0987-07", "/us/421/0987-05", "/us/421/0987-03", "/us/421/0987-09", "/us/421/0987-01", "/us/421/0987-06", "/us/421/0987-08", "/us/421/0987-02", "/us/421/0987-04" ] }, { "cite": "209 S.E.2d 462", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "465" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 41", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563315 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "45" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0041-01" ] }, { "cite": "393 S.E.2d 545", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "548" }, { "parenthetical": "Citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 N.C. App. 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523319 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "427" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/99/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 L.Ed.2d 101", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 S.Ct. 134", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "402 S.E.2d 433", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2537668, 2543786, 2542358, 2539640, 2542331 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0334-04", "/nc/328/0334-02", "/nc/328/0334-01", "/nc/328/0334-03", "/nc/328/0334-05" ] }, { "cite": "397 S.E.2d 653", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "655" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 N.C. App. 628", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527353 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "631" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/100/0628-01" ] }, { "cite": "370 S.E.2d 553", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "322 N.C 709", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2515352 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/322/0709-01" ] }, { "cite": "392 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6167798 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/392/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "428 U.S. 364", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6177992 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/428/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "254 S.E.2d 586", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589", "parenthetical": "quoting South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 216", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568424 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "223", "parenthetical": "quoting South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0216-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1006, "char_count": 26537, "ocr_confidence": 0.778, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.534913176764881e-07, "percentile": 0.8128304005368653 }, "sha256": "11dfc0d5b440ba81ba2fc5fe8789d15f179b5e0f1ca21a1b52209e387ef33bdb", "simhash": "1:0ac8542aa17b2cd2", "word_count": 4343 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:52:31.872261+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Lewis and Walker concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLARENCE J. HUNTER and JOE McCRAY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nThis appeal arises as a result of a traffic stop where a North Carolina State Trooper (\u201cTrooper Lowry\u201d) came upon the two defendants asleep in a car parked at a rest stop off interstate 95 (\u201c1-95\u201d). Upon approaching the vehicle, Trooper Lowry informed the driver of the car, Clarence Hunter, that he was illegally parked and asked for his driver\u2019s license and the vehicle registration. Defendant Hunter provided his Florida driver\u2019s license and the rental agreement for the vehicle. Trooper Lowry then asked Hunter to sit in the patrol car for the purpose of issuing him a warning ticket. Immediately after issuing the ticket, Trooper Lowry asked Hunter whether he would consent to a search of the vehicle. Hunter agreed and signed a consent form. Trooper Lowry then radioed other highway patrol officers for assistance in the search. Trooper Lowry found drug paraphernalia, including triple beam scales, zip lock baggies and one sided razor blades in a search of the trunk. Also within the trunk, Trooper Lowry opened a bag in which he found more zip lock baggies, pharmaceutical receipts, and a traffic citation issued to Hunter in Florida. Within the vehicle, Sergeant Ralph Price found a pharmaceutical receipt with cocaine folded inside, and a traffic citation issued to defendant McCray in Georgia. Trooper Lowry found a radio lying in the floor of the backseat. He searched the radio and found crack cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride inside. Each defendant was placed under arrest.\nBoth defendants were charged with trafficking in a controlled substance by possession, trafficking in a controlled substance by transportation, possession with intent to sell and deliver a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Prior to trial, both defendant Hunter and McCray filed motions to suppress the evidence found in the search. Defendant McCray\u2019s motion was denied on the ground that he lacked standing to challenge the search. Defendant Hunter\u2019s motion was denied because the trial court concluded that Hunter consented to the search. Both defendants were convicted on all charges and sentenced to fifteen years on the trafficking in cocaine by transportation charge and twenty years on the remaining charges. It is from these convictions that the defendants appeal.\nDefendant Hunter\u2019s Appeal\nDefendant Hunter has three assignments of error within this appeal. He first contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence found in the warrantless search of the automobile because the initial stop by Trooper Lowry was pre-textual. He also assigns error to the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion to dismiss all charges' on grounds of insufficient evidence. Hunter further contends,the trial court\u2019s instruction to the jury on constructive possession was erroneous.\nWe first address the denial of the defendant Hunter\u2019s motion to suppress evidence. Hunter asserts the traffic stop was pretextual and Trooper Lowry\u2019s actual purpose was to search the defendant for illegal drugs because he matched a \u201cdrug courier profile.\u201d He argues that even if the stop was valid, Trooper Lowry\u2019s subsequent investigation exceeded the scope of the search. He also contends no intelligent or voluntary consent to search the automobile was given.\nA stop is invalid if it seeks to use a \u201cpretext concealing an investigatory motive\u201d on the part of the police. State v. Phifer, 297 N.C. 216, 223, 254 S.E.2d 586, 589 (1979) (quoting South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)). If the investigatory search is invalid, then the evidence seized as a result of the warrantless stop is inadmissible under the \u201cexclusionary rule\u201d both according to the federal constitution and the North Carolina Constitution. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), State v. Carter, 322 N.C 709, 370 S.E.2d 553 (1988). An officer, however, does not need probable cause to investigate a potential traffic offense, but instead is governed by the reasonableness standards of the Fourth Amendment. State v. Aubin, 100 N.C. App. 628, 631, 397 S.E.2d 653, 655 (1990), rev. denied, 328 N.C. 334, 402 S.E.2d 433, cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 134, 116 L.Ed.2d 101 (1991). This Court set out the guidelines' for such stops in State v. Morocco, 99 N.C. App. 421, 427, 393 S.E.2d 545, 548 (1990):\nA police officer may conduct a brief investigative stop of a vehicle where justified by specific, articulable facts which give rise to a reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct. However, police may not make Terry-stops based on the pretext of a minor traffic violation.\nIn determining the traffic stop was pretextual, the trial court should look at what a reasonable officer would do rather than what an officer could do.\nId. (Citations omitted).\nApplied to the instant case, the question is whether a reasonable officer would have stopped the defendant for being illegally parked in a rest area, not whether an officer could have done so.\nThe trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law on this issue, and we are bound by the findings if they are supported by competent evidence. State v. Crews, 286 N.C. 41, 45, 209 S.E.2d 462, 465 (1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 987, 44 L.Ed.2d 477 (1975). In determining whether a stop was pretextual, however, we are not bound by the trial court\u2019s conclusion. See State v. Davis, 305 N.C. 400, 410, 290 S.E.2d 574, 583 (1982). The trial court found that Trooper Lowry observed the defendant\u2019s automobile \u201cin the truck parking area hindering the flow of traffic,\u201d and that Trooper Lowry advised the defendant he was illegally parked and issued a warning ticket for improper parking. The trial court then concluded \u201cthe brief detention for the issuance of the warning ticket was lawful and reasonable in all respects under the circumstances then existing.\u201d Trooper Lowry testified that he observed the defendant parked in the driveway reserved for trucks and that it was his practice to issue a warning ticket for illegal parking. These findings are in our opinion supported in the record by competent evidence. Furthermore, we find that the trial court\u2019s findings support its conclusion that the subject search was not pretextual.\nThe defendant also argues that the subsequent investigation by Trooper Lowry after issuing the warning ticket exceeded the scope of the stop. \u201cThe scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification.\u201d Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500, 75 L.Ed.2d 229, 238 (1983). However, \u201cthe officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer\u2019s suspicions.\u201d Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439, 82 L.Ed.2d 317, 334 (1984).\nThe findings show that Trooper Lowry stopped the defendant for illegal parking and questioned the defendant about the other two occupants in the automobile. The defendant first told Trooper Lowry that the girl in the vehicle was a cousin and the man in the back was her brother but then later said the girl was actually his girlfriend and the man was not a relative. The rental agreement the defendant presented was in the name of Anthony Gilkes who was not present in the vehicle. We find that questions asked by Trooper Lowry about the other occupants of the vehicle were legitimately aimed at confirming the defendant\u2019s identity particularly in light of the rental contract being in the name of another person. Trooper Lowry then issued a warning ticket to the defendant and asked him if he would sign a consent to search form allowing Trooper Lowry to search the automobile and all luggage. We conclude that Trooper Lowry\u2019s initial investigation was reasonably related to the purpose of issuing a warning ticket for illegal parking and that asking for permission to search the defendant\u2019s vehicle did not exceed the permissible scope of his investigation.\nThe defendant next contends that he did not consent to the search of his automobile. When, as here, the State seeks to rely upon defendant\u2019s consent to support the validity of a search, it has the burden of proving that the consent was voluntary. State v. Hunt, 37 N.C. App. 315, 321, 246 S.E.2d 159, 163 (1978); Schneckcloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all of the surrounding circumstances. State v. Williams, 314 N.C. 337, 344, 333 S.E.2d 708, 714 (1985). We are bound by the trial court\u2019s findings of fact which are supported by competent evidence. Id. at 345, 333 S.E.2d at 715. The trial court\u2019s conclusions of law, however, are reviewable on appeal. Id. at 346, 333 S.E.2d at 715.\nThe record indicates and the trial court found that the defendant signed a consent to search form and that Trooper Lowry did not threaten or otherwise force the defendant to sign the form. These findings are supported by competent evidence. The record further supports the trial court\u2019s finding that the defendant never withdrew his consent to search the automobile. We hold that these findings support the trial court\u2019s conclusion that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently consented to the search of the automobile. We, therefore, conclude the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the evidence found in the search was properly denied.\nThe defendant next argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss on the ground the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant either actually or constructively possessed the cocaine. We disagree.\nIn ruling upon a motion to dismiss the trial court must examine the evidence \u201cin the light most favorable to the State, and the State is entitled to every reasonable inference which can be drawn from the evidence presented; all contradictions and discrepancies are resolved in the State\u2019s favor.\u201d State v. Morris, 102 N.C. App. 541, 544, 402 S.E.2d 845, 847 (1991). The trial court must determine as a question of law whether the State has offered substantial evidence of the defendant\u2019s guilt on every essential element of the crime charged. State v. Cox, 303 N.C. 75, 87, 277 S.E.2d 376, 384 (1981). \u201c \u2018Substantial evidence\u2019 is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.\u201d Id.\nA defendant has possession of a controlled substance when he has both the power and intent to control its disposition or use. State v. Summers, 15 N.C. App. 282, 283, 189 S.E.2d 807, 808, cert. denied, 281 N.C. 762, 191 S.E.2d 359 (1972). Possession may be either actual or constructive. State v. Crouch, 15 N.C. App. 172, 174, 189 S.E.2d 763, 764, cert. denied, 281 N.C. 760, 191 S.E.2d 357 (1972). Constructive possession exists when there is no actual personal dominion over the controlled substance, but there is an intent and capability to maintain control and dominion over it. State v. Spencer, 281 N.C. 121, 129, 187 S.E.2d 779, 784 (1972). \u201cAn inference of constructive possession can also arise from evidence which tends to show that a defendant was the custodian of the vehicle where the controlled substance was found.\u201d State v. Dow, 70 N.C. App. 82, 85, 318 S.E.2d 883, 886 (1984). In addition, a defendant\u2019s power to control the automobile where a controlled substance was found is enough to give rise to the inference of knowledge and possession sufficient to go to the jury. Id.\nIn the instant case, the evidence tended to show the defendant was sitting in the driver\u2019s seat of the automobile and had possession of the vehicle\u2019s rental agreement, even though it was not in his name. In addition, a folded pharmaceutical receipt on the console of the automobile contained cocaine. The fingerprints of both defendants were found on the receipt. A portable radio was found on the floor of the backseat. A search of the radio revealed several plastic bags containing crack cocaine and one bag containing cocaine hydrochloride. We conclude there was sufficient evidence to show the defendant had control of the automobile. Furthermore, the defendant\u2019s control of the premises where the controlled substance was found was sufficient to require submission of the issue of possession to the jury. Dow, 70 N.C. App. at 85, 318 S.E.2d at 886. This assignment of error is therefore overruled.\nThe defendant next assigns error to the charge of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(h)(3)(b) (1990 & Supp. 1991) trafficking by possession of at least 200 grams but less than 400 grams (that amount found within the radio) for which he was sentenced to fifteen years. The defendant was also convicted of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(h)(3)(b), trafficking in cocaine by transportation of at least 200 grams but less than 400 grams; N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(a), misdemeanor possession of cocaine (that amount found as residue on the pharmacy receipt); and N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-113.22, possession of drug paraphernalia. These charges were consolidated for trial and he was sentenced to 20 years. He contends that he may not be convicted of misdemeanor possession of cocaine and trafficking by possession because this is violative of his right against double jeopardy. We agree.\nIn State v. Sanderson, 60 N.C. App. 604, 300 S.E.2d 9, disc. review denied, 308 N.C. 679, 304 S.E.2d 759 (1983), the defendants, among other charges, were found guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to sell; manufacturing marijuana and trafficking by possession. They argued that a conviction under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(a) is a lesser included offense of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(h)(l) and conviction for the greater and lesser offense would place the defendants in double jeopardy. This Court agreed and held that,\nManufacturing or possession under G.S. 90-95(a) does not require proof of any additional facts beyond those required under G.S. 90-95(h)(l), therefore convictions under both statutes violate defendants\u2019 protection against double jeopardy, and the convictions for the lesser included offenses should be vacated.\nSanderson, 60 N.C. App. at 610, 300 S.E.2d at 14.\nWe find, and the State concedes as much, that the judgment for the lesser included offense of misdemeanor possession of cocaine should be arrested and that the defendant\u2019s sentence for the greater included offense of trafficking by possession should be vacated and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. We have reviewed the defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error and find them to be without merit.\nDefendant McCray\u2019s Appeal\nDefendant McCray has several assignments of error within this appeal. Initially, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the cocaine found within the radio and the residual cocaine found on the pharmacy receipt in his name on the basis that he had no standing to challenge the search. We disagree. In order for a defendant to challenge a search, he has the burden of proving that he has standing to object to the search and seizure. State v. Taylor, 298 N.C. 405, 415, 259 S.E.2d 502, 508 (1979). However, when a defendant fails to assert a property or possessory interest in the property searched, or a showing of circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises searched, he fails in his burden of proving standing. State v. Jones, 299 N.C. 298, 306, 261 S.E.2d 860, 865 (1980). Even when grounds exist to challenge the search and seizure, the defendant may not do so where he has failed to establish his standing to object. Id.\nThe record indicates that defendant, through his counsel, denied having any possessory or proprietary interest in the radio from which the cocaine was seized. During the hearing on the suppression of evidence, counsel for McCray stated unequivocally that the defendant was \u201cnot making any possessory interest in the radio.\u201d Therefore, without a possessory or proprietary interest in the radio, the defendant lacks standing to challenge the items found within the radio. This assignment of error is overruled.\nNext, defendant McCray assigns error to the admission of certain hearsay statements of the non-testifying co-defendant, Hunter, because the admission of these statements violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. This issue was addressed in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), where the confession of non-testifying co-defendant, Evans, inculpating another defendant, Bruton, was admissible to the extent that it related to Evans\u2019 guilt. However, the Court ruled that the confession was inadmissible hearsay in determining the guilt or innocence of Bruton.\nIn the instant case, Trooper Lowry testified that defendant Hunter, at the time of the search, told him that McCray had driven the car earlier that day and was issued a speeding citation in Georgia. The record indicates that McCray did not object to these statements at the time they were made. Trooper Lowry also testified that he found a pharmacy receipt that contained cocaine residue on the console of the car, which is where the defendant would have been sitting if he had driven the car. The defendant did object to testimony relating to where the pharmacy receipt was found in the automobile, but failed to state any constitutional grounds for the objection. According to Rule 10(b) of the N.C.R. App. P., when an objection fails to state constitutional grounds, the defendant has waived his right to appeal these issues.\nMoreover, the objection to the statements of Trooper Lowry in relation to the pharmacy receipt, are not the type of statements contemplated by Bruton. The Bruton court held that where powerfully incriminating extrajudicial statements of a co-defendant, who stands accused side-by-side with the defendant are deliberately spread before the jury in a joint trial, this is the context in which there is a risk that the jury will not, or cannot, follow the instructions of a trial judge to disregard the information. Bruton, 391 U.S. at 135-36, 20 L.Ed.2d at 485. In the instant case, the statements, as discussed previously, were not \u201cpowerfully incriminating.\u201d Furthermore, the trial court issued an instruction that the evidence was to be admitted only for the purpose of demonstrating the factual relationship between where the item was located and where the driver was sitting. Thus, this assignment of error is also overruled.\nDefendant McCray next assigns error to the admittance of evidence found within a tote bag, including an appointment book bearing the defendant\u2019s name, zip lock baggies and a traffic citation issued to him in Georgia because the items were inadmissible under Rule 404(b). It is the State\u2019s contention that the evidence found within the tote bag was admitted for the purposes of showing that the defendant was in control of the tote bag and the drug paraphernalia found within the bag, and that he had been in control of the vehicle. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (1986) allows the admission:\nEvidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is ... . admissible for . . . proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident.\nId.\nRecently, this Court in State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 389 S.E.2d 48 (1990), held that \u201cevidence of other offenses is admissible so long as it is relevant to any fact or issue other than the character of the accused.\u201d Id. at 278, 389 S.E.2d at 54 (quoting State v. Weaver, 318 N.C. 400, 403, 348 S.E.2d 791, 793 (1986)). Rule 404(b) is a general rule of inclusion for relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts by a defendant, subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant had the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged. Coffey, 326 N.C. at 278-79, 389 S.E.2d at 54.\nIn this situation, the evidence of the speeding citation, appointment book and zip lock baggies were offered for admission to show that the defendant exercised control or had possession of the tote bag and the trial court allowed its admission for \u201cestablishing identity and possession.\u201d As such, this evidence was admitted for a proper purpose within Rule 404(b), and the admission of the citation was also proper as being relevant to any other fact or issue. See id. Therefore, this assignment of error is overruled.\nFinally, defendant McCray assigns error to being convicted both of possession of cocaine and trafficking by possession because this violates his right against double jeopardy. For the reasons stated in defendant Hunter\u2019s opinion above, we agree. Therefore, the judgment for defendant McCray\u2019s conviction with regard to the lesser included offense of misdemeanor possession of cocaine should be arrested and the defendant\u2019s sentence for the greater included offense of trafficking by possession must be vacated and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. Because of our disposition of this issue, we need not address defendant McCray\u2019s final assignment of error.\nIn summary, we hold:\nWith respect to defendant Hunter:\nIn case number 89 CRS 27657, judgment is arrested as to count 3; and, the consolidated sentence entered for counts 1, 3, and 4 is vacated and the remaining counts of 1 and 4 are remanded for resentencing.\nIn case number 89 CRS 27657, count 2 \u2014 No error.\nWith respect to defendant McCray:\nIn case number 89 CRS 27660, judgment is arrested as to count 3; and, the consolidated sentence entered for counts 1, 3, and 4 is vacated and the remaining counts of 1 and 4 are remanded for resentencing.\nIn case number 89 CRS 27660, count 2 \u2014 No error.\nJudges Lewis and Walker concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WYNN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Mary Jill Ledford, for the State.", "Harris, Mitchell, Hancox and VanStory, by Ronnie Mitchell, for defendant-appellant Clarence J. Hunter.", "James R. Parish for defendant-appellant Joe McCray." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLARENCE J. HUNTER and JOE McCRAY\nNo. 9112SC717\n(Filed 15 September 1992)\n1. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 12 (NCI3d)\u2014 illegally parked car \u2014 officer\u2019s stop of defendant not pretextual \u2014 subsequent search within scope of stop\nAn officer\u2019s initial stop of defendant was not pretextual where defendant parked his car in a rest area in a driveway reserved for trucks, and the officer testified that it was his practice to issue a warning ticket for illegal parking. Furthermore, the officer\u2019s subsequent investigation after issuing the warning ticket did not exceed the scope of the stop where the officer asked defendant questions about the other occupants of the car in order to confirm defendant\u2019s identity; defendant gave the officer conflicting information about the car\u2019s occupants; and the questions were legitimate in light of the fact that the rental contract which defendant produced was in the name of another person.\nAm Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures \u00a7 90.\n2. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 18 (NCI3d)\u2014 search of vehicle \u2014 consent given by driver\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that he did not consent to the search of his automobile where defendant signed a consent to search form; the trooper did not threaten or otherwise force defendant to sign the form; and defendant never withdrew his consent to search the automobile.\nAm Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures \u00a7\u00a7 47, 100.\n3. Narcotics \u00a7 4.3 (NCI3d)\u2014 possession of cocaine in vehicle \u2014 sufficiency of evidence of actual or constructive possession\nIn a prosecution of defendant for possession of and trafficking in cocaine, the evidence was sufficient to show that defendant either actually or constructively possessed the cocaine where it tended to show that defendant was sitting in the driver\u2019s seat of the automobile where the cocaine was found and had possession of the vehicle\u2019s rental agreement, even though it was not in his name; a folded pharmaceutical receipt with defendant\u2019s fingerprints on it was found on the console of the automobile, and it contained cocaine; and a portable radio found on the floor of the backseat concealed several plastic bags which contained crack cocaine and one bag which contained cocaine hydrochloride.\nAm Jur 2d, Drugs, Narcotics, and Poisons \u00a7 47.\nConviction of possession of illicit drugs found in automobile of which defendant was. not sole occupant. 57 ALR3d 1319.\n4. Narcotics \u00a7 1.3 (NCI3d)\u2014 trafficking in cocaine by possession \u2014 possession of cocaine \u2014two convictions \u2014double jeopardy\nDefendant could not properly be convicted of trafficking in cocaine by possession and possession of cocaine, since this was violative of his right against double jeopardy.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7 279.\n5. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 15 (NCI3d)\u2014 passenger in vehicle \u2014no standing to challenge search\nDefendant had no standing to challenge the search of a radio seized from a vehicle in which he was a passenger where defendant specifically denied having any possessory or proprietary interest in the radio from which cocaine was seized.\nAm Jur 2d, Evidence \u00a7 418.\n6. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 1214 (NCX4th)\u2014 hearsay statements of nontestifying codefendant \u2014defendant\u2019s right to confront witnesses not denied\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that the trial court erred in admitting certain hearsay statements of the nontestifying codefendant because the admission of these statements violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him, since defendant did not object to some of the statements at the time they were made; defendant did object to some of the investigating officer\u2019s testimony but failed to state any constitutional grounds for the objection and thus waived his right to appeal these issues; the statements involved here were not \u201cpowerfully incriminating\u201d; and the trial court gave a limiting instruction with regard to the statements.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7 956.\n7. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 294 (NCI4th)\u2014 search of tote bag-evidence of other offense \u2014evidence properly admitted\nIn a prosecution for trafficking in cocaine, the trial court did not err in admitting evidence found inside a tote bag, though that included evidence that defendant had been issued a traffic citation in another state, since the evidence was admissible to show that defendant exercised control or had possession of the tote bag, and the evidence was thus admitted for a proper purpose within N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(b).\nAm Jur 2d, Evidence \u00a7 260.\nAppeal by defendants from judgment entered 10 January 1991 in CUMBERLAND County Superior Court by Judge E. Lynn Johnson. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 April 1992.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Mary Jill Ledford, for the State.\nHarris, Mitchell, Hancox and VanStory, by Ronnie Mitchell, for defendant-appellant Clarence J. Hunter.\nJames R. Parish for defendant-appellant Joe McCray." }, "file_name": "0402-01", "first_page_order": 430, "last_page_order": 441 }