{ "id": 9192044, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ALFRED WILLIAMS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williams", "decision_date": "2003-03-18", "docket_number": "No. COA01-1516", "first_page": "661", "last_page": "665", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "156 N.C. App. 661" } ], "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": "449 S.E.2d 412", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "431" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2519104 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "32" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/338/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "526 S.E.2d 191", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "193", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Moseley, 338 N.C. 1, 32, 449 S.E.2d 412, 431 (1994)" }, { "page": "193" }, { "page": "193-94" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 N.C. App. 820", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11242275 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "823", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Moseley, 338 N.C. 1, 32, 449 S.E.2d 412, 431 (1994)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/136/0820-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 L. Ed. 2d 779", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "527 U.S. 1026", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1248035, 1248550, 1248169, 1248458, 1248586, 1248015, 1248113, 1248500, 1248309, 1248056, 1248409, 1248252, 1248413, 1248223 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/527/1026-05", "/us/527/1026-08", "/us/527/1026-13", "/us/527/1026-01", "/us/527/1026-04", "/us/527/1026-07", "/us/527/1026-03", "/us/527/1026-14", "/us/527/1026-12", "/us/527/1026-11", "/us/527/1026-06", "/us/527/1026-02", "/us/527/1026-10", "/us/527/1026-09" ] }, { "cite": "391 S.E.2d 171", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "174-75" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 542", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5305171 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "548" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0542-01" ] }, { "cite": "508 S.E.2d 253", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Agee, 326 N.C. 542, 548, 391 S.E.2d 171, 174-75 (1990)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 N.C. 535", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571619 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "552", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Agee, 326 N.C. 542, 548, 391 S.E.2d 171, 174-75 (1990)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0535-01" ] }, { "cite": "546 S.E.2d 386", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135906, 135979, 135916, 135988, 135962 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0275-03", "/nc/353/0275-05", "/nc/353/0275-01", "/nc/353/0275-04", "/nc/353/0275-02" ] }, { "cite": "529 S.E.2d 247", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 N.C. App. 495", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11094280 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "501" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/137/0495-01" ] }, { "cite": "389 S.E.2d 48", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "54" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5306215 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "278-79" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "573 S.E.2d 132", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "143" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 490", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511491 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "505" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0490-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 601, "char_count": 11099, "ocr_confidence": 0.765, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.311448839694236e-08, "percentile": 0.479906550536344 }, "sha256": "9f17e91314f94f683dce452ebe4c2aef6806d0f324efc0cd592977c2bb888a4e", "simhash": "1:85a17079b43b88b4", "word_count": 1811 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:05:49.893248+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WYNN and ELMORE concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ALFRED WILLIAMS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge.\nAlfred Williams (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals from his conviction of felony possession of cocaine. For the reasons discussed herein, we hold that defendant is entitled to a new trial.\nThe State\u2019s evidence at trial tended to show the following: On 14 August 2000, Officer Joshua Howard (\u201cOfficer Howard\u201d) was patrolling the Green Meadows area of Henderson County. While on patrol, Officer Howard observed Mr. Coleman (\u201cColeman\u201d) operating a vehicle and defendant riding on the passenger side. Coleman stopped the vehicle in front of a house, defendant got out of the vehicle, entered the residence, and Coleman continued to drive. Officer Howard testified that he was familiar with the residence due to \u201cnumerous drug arrest[s]\u201d conducted in and around the property. After defendant got out of the vehicle, Officer Howard followed Coleman as he drove \u201caround the block,\u201d and then returned to retrieve defendant. Officer Howard considered the actions of Coleman and defendant \u201cextremely suspicious\u201d and therefore he continued to follow Coleman. Officer Howard testified that Coleman\u2019s vehicle did not possess a license plate and he waited until he reached a \u201csafe location\u201d before stopping Coleman for a traffic violation. Upon making the traffic stop, Officer Howard learned that Coleman did not have a driver\u2019s license; had several vehicle registration violations; and a protective pat down of Coleman revealed that he was in possession of a hypodermic needle. Coleman was placed under arrest.\nAfter placing Coleman under arrest, Officer Howard instructed defendant to exit the vehicle. A protective pat down of defendant yielded no contraband or weapons, but Officer Howard noticed a \u201cblob of tissue paper that really stuck out\u201d on the \u201cpassenger side front door,\u201d which was \u201creal wet.\u201d According to testimony from Officer Howard, he \u201cfelt [the tissue] was something suspicious\u201d and he confiscated \u201cthe tissue\u201d for further analysis, but did not arrest defendant. Officer Howard described the front interior of Coleman\u2019s vehicle as \u201cnot at all clean,\u201d contained \u201cdrinks and things,\u201d and it \u201cappeared [as if] somebody [had gone] to a fast food restaurant.\u201d\nUpon returning to the police station, Officer Howard noticed that \u201cthe wet tissue\u201d had what he \u201cfelt was saliva on\u201d it as if \u201cit had been in someone\u2019s mouth.\u201d Subsequently, Officer Howard sent the \u201ctissue paper\u201d to the State Bureau of Investigation (\u201cSBI\u201d) for testing. The test results revealed that the \u201ctissue\u201d contained \u201c.1 gram of cocaine base.\u201d As a result, an arrest warrant was issued for defendant, and he was subsequently charged with possession of cocaine.\nAt trial, the State offered testimony, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(b), from Melody Harding Lamontaine (\u201cLamontaine\u201d), an inmate in the custody of the Sheriff\u2019s Department. According to Lamontaine, on 22 April 2000, approximately four months prior to defendant\u2019s arrest, she was acting as an informant for Agent John Pace (\u201cAgent Pace\u201d). Lamontaine testified that she was assisting Agent Pace in gathering information on individuals engaged in selling illegal narcotics. At the direction of Agent Pace, Lamontaine contacted defendant by telephone and initiated a meeting to purchase drugs from him. Lamontaine testified that she met defendant in a parking lot, where he was sitting on the passenger side of a vehicle driven by a female. During the meeting, defendant took-out a \u201cblack pill container\u201d with a \u201clid on it\u201d and sold Lamontaine \u201cfive rocks of cocaine.\u201d After making the purchase, Lamontaine returned to Agent Pace and gave him the \u201cfive rocks of cocaine.\u201d\nAt trial, Agent Pace testified on behalf of the State to corroborate the testimony given by Lamontaine. Agent Pace testified that on 22 April 2000 he was employed with Alcohol and Law Enforcement. He further testified that he witnessed Lamontaine enter a vehicle with defendant, exit that same vehicle, and then return to him with \u201cfive white colored rocks,\u201d which he then gave to Officer Lyle Case of the Hendersonville Police Department. The \u201cfive white colored rocks\u201d were sent to SBI where they were determined to be cocaine. According to Agent Pace, defendant was never charged with or indicted for a crime in connection with the 22 April 2000 incident with Lamontaine.\nAfter the jury found defendant guilty of felony possession of cocaine, defendant admitted his status as a habitual felon. Defendant was sentenced to an active term of imprisonment for a minimum period of 107 to a maximum period of 138 months. From this conviction and resulting sentence, defendant appeals.\n' In his sole issue for review, defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting testimony from Lamontaine under North Carolina General Statutes \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(b). Defendant contends that testimony of his alleged prior drug sale in order to show motive and intent to possess cocaine was inadmissible. We conclude that the admission of testimony from Lamontaine was prejudicial error requiring that defendant be granted a new trial.\nRule 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence provides in pertinent part:\nEvidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (2001). \u201cWe have held that Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion, subject to the single exception that such evidence must be excluded if its only probative value is to show that defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.\u201d State v. Berry, 356 N.C. 490, 505, 573 S.E.2d 132, 143 (2002); see State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79, 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990). In drug cases, evidence of other drug violations is often admissible to prove many of the purposes under Rule 404(b). State v. Montford, 137 N.C. App. 495, 501, 529 S.E.2d 247, cert. denied, 353 N.C. 275, 546 S.E.2d 386 (2000). In order to admit evidence under the exception for motive, the prior act must \u201c \u2018pertain[] to the chain of events explaining the context, motive and set-up of the crime\u2019 and \u2018form[] an integral and natural part of an account of the crime .. . necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury.\u2019 \u201d State v. White, 349 N.C. 535, 552, 508 S.E.2d 253, 264 (1998) (quoting State v. Agee, 326 N.C. 542, 548, 391 S.E.2d 171, 174-75 (1990)), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1026,144 L. Ed. 2d 779 (1999). \u201cIn each case, \u2018the burden is on the defendant to show that there was no proper purpose for which the evidence could be admitted.\u2019 \u201d State v. Willis, 136 N.C. App. 820, 823, 526 S.E.2d 191, 193 (2000) (quoting State v. Moseley, 338 N.C. 1, 32, 449 S.E.2d 412, 431 (1994)).\nIn Willis, Over the defendant\u2019s objection, the trial court admitted evidence of the defendant\u2019s previous conviction of common law robbery to show his identity, modus operandi, motive, and the existence of a common plan or scheme. Id. at 822, 526 S.E.2d at 193. This Court concluded that the similarity between the past robbery and the robbery for which defendant was charged was nearly non-existent, because there was no evidence concerning the manner in which the previous robbery was carried out. Id. at 823, 526 S.E.2d at 193-94. This Court further concluded that the admission of the prior common law robbery conviction was prejudicial error in that it only went to show the defendant\u2019s character to commit common law robbery. Id.\nIn the case at bar, the testimony provided by Lamontaine detailed an alleged drug transaction which took place four months prior to defendant\u2019s arrest for possession of cocaine. However, the similarity between the alleged drug sale to Lamontaine and the crime for which defendant is charged in this case is non-existent. The manner in which the alleged 22 April 2000 transaction was carried out was in no way similar to the matter before this Court.\nTestimony from Lamontaine revealed the following: (1) on one occasion she met defendant who was the passenger in a vehicle operated by a female; (2) defendant produced a \u201cblack pill container;\u201d and (3) gave her \u201cfive rocks of cocaine\u201d in exchange for a sum of money. However, testimony from Officer Howard reveals that in the case before this Court (1) defendant was the passenger in a car driven by a male; (2) defendant went into a residence and then returned to the vehicle; (3) defendant possessed no drugs or weapons at the time he was stopped by Officer Howard; (4) during the traffic stop, defendant was in close proximity to a \u201cpiece of tissue,\u201d which tested positive for cocaine. The only commonality between the alleged crime described by Lamontaine and the matter in this case is that both incidents involved defendant riding as a passenger in a vehicle. The testimony from Lamontaine failed to show that the alleged 22 April 2000 sale of drags by defendant was relevant to show defendant\u2019s motive and intent to commit the crime at issue here. The only relevance of the testimony from Lamontaine was to illustrate defendant\u2019s predisposition toward drag violations, which is a purpose forbidden by Rule 404(b). Therefore, the admission of testimony from Lamontaine was erroroneous.\nIn the present case, the evidence supporting defendant\u2019s possession of cocaine while perhaps sufficient to support a conviction on a theory of constructive possession was not conclusive. The \u201cwet tissue\u201d containing the small quantity of cocaine was located in the passenger side door of a vehicle owned by Coleman. The evidence at trial described the state of the vehicle\u2019s interior as \u201cnot at all clean\u201d and cluttered with \u201cfast food\u201d items. Thus, there is a reasonable possibility that had Lamontaine\u2019s testimony not been allowed, a different result may have been reached in defendant\u2019s trial. We hold that the admission of Lamontaine\u2019s testimony was prejudicial to the right of defendant to a fair trial.\nNew trial.\nJudges WYNN and ELMORE concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Frank G. Swindell, Jr., for the State.", "James L. Goldsmith, Jr., for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ALFRED WILLIAMS\nNo. COA01-1516\n(Filed 18 March 2003)\nEvidence\u2014 prior drug offense \u2014 no similarity \u2014 prejudicial\nTestimony about an alleged prior drug sale should not have been admitted in a prosecution for cocaine possession where there was no similarity between the two offenses and the only relevance of the testimony was to illustrate defendant\u2019s predisposition to drug violations. The testimony was prejudicial because the evidence of possession was not conclusive.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 10 May 2001 by Judge Loto G. Caviness in Henderson County Superior Court. Originally scheduled to be heard in the Court of Appeals on 17 September 2002. Reassigned to this panel by order dated 16 January 2003 of Chief Judge of the North Carolina Court of Appeals.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Frank G. Swindell, Jr., for the State.\nJames L. Goldsmith, Jr., for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0661-01", "first_page_order": 691, "last_page_order": 695 }