{
  "id": 8551625,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DANNIE ROMES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Romes",
  "decision_date": "1972-05-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 7214SC282",
  "first_page": "602",
  "last_page": "604",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 602"
    }
  ],
  "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": "183 S.E. 2d 680",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 406",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569274
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0406-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 S.E. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1938,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N.C. 640",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629867
      ],
      "year": 1938,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0640-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 S.E. 600",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N.C. 239",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599745
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0239-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 S.E. 2d 667",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1951,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 N.C. 168",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619852
      ],
      "year": 1951,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/234/0168-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 49",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575372
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0377-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 313,
    "char_count": 5149,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.618960931806326e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8211652494025713
    },
    "sha256": "857e6bd9d956ef4681188b50620aa73f689f519637c922b20f874802e2e408d1",
    "simhash": "1:27889643465d3af9",
    "word_count": 902
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:48.650385+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Brock concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DANNIE ROMES"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MALLARD, Chief Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s first contention is that the trial judge erred in failing to allow his motion for judgment as of nonsuit. We do not agree. We think there was ample evidence to require submission of the case to the jury. See State v. Cook, 273 N.C. 377, 160 S.E. 2d 49 (1968). The jury could have found from the defendant\u2019s evidence that he did not possess the heroin, but the jury apparently did not believe all of the testimony of the defendant and his witnesses.\nThe defendant also argues and contends that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury concerning \u201cpossession\u201d and \u201cconstructive possession\u201d of narcotic drugs.\nThe judge instructed the jury:\n\u201cNow, members of the Jury, I instruct you that a person does have possession of a narcotic drug when he has either by himself or together with others the power and the intent to control the disposition or use of the drug.\u201d\nLater, after they had retired, the jury voluntarily returned to the courtroom and upon request, the judge instructed them:\n\u201c* * * A person to be guilty of possession must knowingly possess it and as I instruct you that a person possesses a narcotic drug when he has either by himself or together with others the power and intent to control the disposition or use of the drug. * * *\u201d\nThe language used in these instructions is in accordance with the law of possession that is stated in connection with the possession of intoxicating liquor in State v. Fuqua, 234 N.C. 168, 66 S.E. 2d 667 (1951), wherein Justice Ervin said:\n\u201cAn accused has possession of intoxicating liquor within the meaning of the law when he has both the power and the intent to control its disposition or use. The requisite power to control may reside in the accused acting alone or in combination with others. S. v. Meyers, 190 N.C. 239, 129 S.E. 600.\u201d\nIn the case of State v. Jones, 213 N.C. 640, 197 S.E. 152 (1938), Justice Barnhill (later Chief Justice) said: \u201cPersonal property is in the possession of a person whenever it is in his custody and control and subject to his disposition.\u201d See also, State v. Allen, 279 N.C. 406, 183 S.E. 2d 680 (1971), and 73 C.J.S., Property, \u00a7 14.\nThe principle of law relating to the possession of intoxicating liquor and other personal property is also applicable to the possession of narcotic drugs. We hold, therefore, that the trial judge did not commit error in instructing the jury as to the law on \u201cpossession\u201d of narcotic drugs.\nIn the trial we find no error.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Brock concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MALLARD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan and Assistant Attorneys General Eagles and Walker for the State.",
      "Felix B. Clayton for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DANNIE ROMES\nNo. 7214SC282\n(Filed 24 May 1972)\n1. Narcotics \u00a7 4 \u2014 possession of heroin \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of defendant\u2019s guilt of possession of heroin, where it tended to show that nine bindles of heroin were found in the bathroom of an apartment, that defendant was in charge of the premises, that defendant and several others were in the apartment when the heroin was found, and that defendant \u201chad one or two tracks on his right arm.\u201d\n2. Narcotics \u00a7 4.5 \u2014 instructions on possession\nThe trial court did not err in instructing the jury that a person possesses a narcotic drug \u201cwhen he has either by himself or together with others the power and intent to control the disposition or use of the drug.\u201d\nAppeal by defendant from Hall, Judge, 8 November 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Durham County.\nDefendant was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with the felony of unlawful possession of nine bindles of the narcotic drug heroin.\nThe evidence for the State tended to show that on 31 August 1971, the defendant was in charge of the premises at 1215 Dawkins Street in Durham, North Carolina, that several other persons were there, and that the defendant gave the officers permission, at first, to search the premises for one Kenneth McCauley (for whom they had a capias) and then later gave them permission to search the premises for drugs. As a result of the search for drugs, the officers found nine bindles of heroin in the bathroom. The defendant \u201chad one or two tracks on his right arm.\u201d\nDefendant offered evidence which tended to show that 1215 Dawkins Street was his \u201cgirl friend\u2019s house,\u201d that she was away at work and that he was \u201cthere keeping the baby.\u201d His girl friend had a job and paid the rent on the premises, a three-room apartment. At the time of his arrest, the defendant was present in the apartment with four other persons and had heard some of these persons, all of whom he knew, talking about heroin. He told the officers that the heroin discovered during the search belonged to one Bobby Barnes, that Barnes had put the heroin in the bathroom when the officers had knocked on the door, that the heroin was not his and he had nothing to do with it, and that Barnes was also charged with possession of this same heroin.\nFrom a verdict of guilty and a judgment imposing a prison sentence, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals.\nAttorney General Morgan and Assistant Attorneys General Eagles and Walker for the State.\nFelix B. Clayton for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0602-01",
  "first_page_order": 628,
  "last_page_order": 630
}