{
  "id": 8549891,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANDREW KENT SUMMERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Summers",
  "decision_date": "1972-07-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 7226SC437",
  "first_page": "282",
  "last_page": "284",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 282"
    }
  ],
  "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": "187 S.E. 2d 779",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 121",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573959
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0121-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 706",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573594
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 307,
    "char_count": 4264,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.498,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.0724838058830625e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9085688007293089
    },
    "sha256": "60e9c77057083ed38151a605c8ce8f6f3ceb2bf7c5baaf1872cad22bec250e0d",
    "simhash": "1:0e41a3384498d1c3",
    "word_count": 724
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:51.335715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANDREW KENT SUMMERS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nThere was no evidence of actual possession and the question presented is whether there was sufficient evidence of constructive possession to warrant submitting the case to the jury. We think there was.\nAn accused has possession of contraband material within the meaning of the law when he has both the power and intent to control its disposition or use. \u201cWhere such materials are found on the premises under the control of an 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.\u201d State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1, 187 S.E. 2d 706. Here, the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to find that the backyard where the marihuana was found was under defendant\u2019s control. There was a chain link fence around the backyard and a large dog was in the yard. The marihuana was found at a point in the yard \u201cpractically up against the house.\u201d In State v. Spencer, 281 N.C. 121, 187 S.E. 2d 779, the State\u2019s evidence was held sufficient to support a jury finding that areas more remote from the accused\u2019s living quarters than here shown were under his control.\nWe hold that defendant\u2019s motions to dismiss were properly overruled. Defendant\u2019s remaining assignment of error, directed to admission of the testimony of the clerk of the City Water Department, is without merit.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Millard R. Rich, Jr., for the State.",
      "Charles B. Merryman, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANDREW KENT SUMMERS\nNo. 7226SC437\n(Filed 12 July 1972)\n1. Narcotics \u00a7 4 \u2014 possession defined\nAn accused has possession of contraband material within the meaning of the law when he has both the power and intent to control its disposition or use.\n2. Narcotics \u00a7 4 \u2014 possession \u2014 marijuana in defendant\u2019s yard\nThere is sufficient evidence of constructive possession of marijuana to warrant submitting the case to the jury where 20 grams of the contraband material are found in defendant\u2019s fenced-in backyard at a point practically up against defendant\u2019s house.\nAppeal by defendant from Friday, Judge, 31 January 1972 Schedule \u201cB\u201d Session of Superior Court held in Mecklenburg County.\nDefendant was indicted for the unlawful possession of 20 grams of marihuana. He pleaded not guilty. The State\u2019s evidence showed: At 8:35 p.m. on 8 October 1971 Charlotte police officers, armed with a search warrant, searched a one-story, frame, five-room, single-family dwelling at 2444 Greenland Avenue. When they arrived, they found defendant lying on a couch in the living room and approximately fifteen to twenty other young people in the house listening to a hi-fi set. Defendant told one of the officers that he and a Jerry Hull lived at the house but that Hull was not there. A clerk in the City Water Department testified that on 1 July 1970 a deposit had been made for 2444 Greenland Avenue in defendant\u2019s name. No marihuana was found in the house, and three of the officers then proceeded to search outside. At the rear of the house, these officers found a chain link fence approximately four feet high around the back portion of the yard. There were gates leading inside the fence. A large dog was out there, and one officer was instructed by his superior to watch the dog so that it didn\u2019t bite the other officers while they were trying to search in the rear. Outside and at the rear of the house, the officers found an old electric stove sitting \u201cpractically up against the house, almost as close as you can get it.\u201d Under the stove they found a small plastic bag approximately two inches deep and about five inches long, which contained green vegetable material which on analysis was determined to be marihuana weighing a little over 20 grams. During the time the officers were searching the premises, they did not permit anyone to leave the house.\nDefendant did not introduce evidence. The jury found him guilty, and the court sentenced him to prison for a term of six months, but suspended the sentence and placed him on probation for a period of two years upon conditions agreed upon by the defendant. From this judgment, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Millard R. Rich, Jr., for the State.\nCharles B. Merryman, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0282-01",
  "first_page_order": 306,
  "last_page_order": 308
}