{ "id": 4364024, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD PRINCEGERALD COX", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Cox", "decision_date": "2012-02-07", "docket_number": "No. COA11-609", "first_page": "583", "last_page": "589", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "218 N.C. App. 583" } ], "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": "640 S.E.2d 797", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12637767 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "801", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/640/0797-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 S.E.2d 681", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "686" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 N.C. App. 50", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526338 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "57" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0050-01" ] }, { "cite": "710 S.E.2d 31", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2011, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "365 N.C. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 2011, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "706 S.E.2d 280", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "286" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 S.E.2d 487", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "495" }, { "page": "495-96" }, { "page": "493" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 222", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4715156 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "237" }, { "page": "232" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0222-01" ] }, { "cite": "342 S.E.2d 878", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "880" }, { "page": "880-81" }, { "page": "881", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 528", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4699127 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "532" }, { "page": "532" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0528-01" ] }, { "cite": "669 S.E.2d 299", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "305", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "306" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "362 N.C. 583", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4150578 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "592", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "592" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/362/0583-01" ] }, { "cite": "313 S.E.2d 585", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "310 N.C. 563", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2395265 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "569" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/310/0563-01" ] }, { "cite": "583 S.E.2d 680", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "683", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 569, 313 S.E.2d 585, 589 (1984)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "159 N.C. App. 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8957169 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "525", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 569, 313 S.E.2d 585, 589 (1984)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/159/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "508 S.E.2d 315", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "318", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "318" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "131 N.C. App. 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11202004 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "519", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "519" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/131/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 N.C. App. 655", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8375785 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "659", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/181/0655-01" ] }, { "cite": "483 S.E.2d 432", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "434", "parenthetical": "quotations and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 N.C. 713", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 53881 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "716-17", "parenthetical": "quotations and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/345/0713-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 682, "char_count": 14926, "ocr_confidence": 0.753, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.14886659415278652 }, "sha256": "54a92796013a22c9b88cba679c75ad292728b3989dcbdc21196be3066f9264cd", "simhash": "1:6f096c43e43b28c3", "word_count": 2420 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:21:59.538017+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges BRYANT and STEPHENS concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD PRINCEGERALD COX" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ELMORE, Judge.\nRonald Princegerald Cox (defendant) was found guilty by a jury of possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of marijuana (greater than 0.5 ounces to 1.5 ounces). He now appeals. We find error as to defendant\u2019s conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon and no error as to his conviction for possession of marijuana.\nThe Goldsboro Police Department conducted a DWI checkpoint from 11:00 p.m. on 30 October 2009 until 3:00 a.m. on 31 October 2009. The checkpoint was at the intersection of Central Heights and Highway 13 North; the validity of the checkpoint is not at issue in this case. At approximately 1:35 a.m. on 31 October 2009, Officer William VanLenten saw a white Chevrolet Impala traveling north on Highway 13; the car then slowed and pulled into the driveway of a residence. Officer VanLenten knew that the car did not belong to the residence\u2019s owner, so he followed the car into the driveway. As he approached the car, he saw the driver, a black male, jump out of the car and travel by foot towards the back of the residence. The driver left the car door open. Officer VanLenten saw three passengers sitting in the car. Two were in the back seat, and defendant was sitting in the front passenger seat. Officer VanLenten saw that defendant had a sheet of white paper in his lap, with a cigar wrapper and some green vegetable matter that Officer VanLenten later identified as marijuana. Officer VanLenten observed defendant rolling the green vegetable matter into the cigar wrapper to form \u201csome type of cigar or cigarette.\u201d When a second officer, Officer McNeil, arrived on the scene, he also observed the green vegetable matter on defendant\u2019s lap.\nWhen Officer VanLenten examined the \u201cflight path\u201d of the car\u2019s driver, Brian White, he found a clear plastic bag containing other clear plastic bags, which each contained green leafy vegetable matter, later identified by Officer VanLenten as marijuana. He also found a .45 Taurus revolver. The revolver was lying in the grass about ten or twelve feet from the open driver\u2019s side door. The bag of marijuana was about three feet away from the revolver. Officer VanLenten observed that the gun was dry and warm to the touch, while the grass was wet with condensation. The outside temperature was \u201ccool\u201d and \u201cmost people were wearing long sleeves.\u201d Officer VanLenten did not observe defendant or the other three passengers throw anything out of the car windows.\nOfficer VanLenten found a second .45 Taurus revolver in the car at the feet of one of the passengers, James Darden; Darden claimed ownership of that revolver. However, nobody claimed ownership of either the baggies of marijuana or the other revolver. A national database search showed that the revolver that Officer VanLenten found in the grass did not belong to defendant or the other vehicle occupants; it had been stolen from Sumter, Georgia. Officer VanLenten took defendant, White, and the third passenger, Deangelo Cox, into custody for possession of a stolen firearm and possession of marijuana. Officer McNeil took Darden into custody. Officer VanLenten also seized the paper, cigar wrapper, and green vegetable matter that he found on defendant\u2019s lap.\nAfter Officer VanLenten took defendant, White, and Deangelo Cox to the police station, he informed them that if nobody took ownership of the revolver and the baggies of marijuana, they would all be charged. According to Officer VanLenten, defendant and White asked whether Deangelo Cox (defendant\u2019s younger brother) would be charged if they took ownership of the revolver and the drugs. At that point, Officer VanLenten read them their Miranda warnings and had them sign a form showing that they had been given their Miranda warnings. Officer VanLenten testified that, at 3:07 a.m., White \u201cstated that the weed belonged to him,\u201d and, at 3:08 a.m., defendant \u201cstated that the revolver belonged to him.\u201d He asked both White and defendant to write and sign statements, but both refused. He testified, \u201cThey said that that was enough, that that was all they were going to say.\u201d\nAfter running defendant\u2019s record and learning that he had a felony conviction, Officer VanLenten charged defendant with possession of a firearm by a felon. He testified that, while he was completing the paperwork, he overheard defendant say that \u201che continued to roll his weed up because he knew they were about to be going to jail.\u201d\nDefendant was sentenced as a Level II offender to a term of twelve to fifteen months\u2019 imprisonment for the felony firearm charge and the misdemeanor drug charge. He now appeals.\nDefendant first argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the firearm charge for insufficient evidence. We agree.\nWhen a defendant moves for dismissal based on insufficiency of the evidence, the trial court must determine\nwhether the State has presented substantial evidence of each essential element of the offense charged and substantial evidence that the defendant is the perpetrator. If substantial evidence of each element is presented, the motion for dismissal is properly denied. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.\nState v. Cross, 345 N.C. 713, 716-17, 483 S.E.2d 432, 434 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted). \u201cIn considering the motion, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence, and resolving any contradictions in favor of the State.\u201d State v. Anderson, 181 N.C. App. 655, 659, 640 S.E.2d 797, 801 (2007) (citation omitted).\nUnder N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.1, \u201c[i]t shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a felony to purchase, own, possess, or have in his custody, care, or control any firearm[.]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.1(a) (2011). Here, there is no question that defendant has been convicted of a felony. The only element at issue is whether defendant owned or possessed the revolver.\nPossession of any item may be actual or constructive. Actual possession requires that a party have physical or personal custody of the item. A person has constructive possession of an item when the item is not in his physical custody, but he nonetheless has the power and intent to control its disposition.\nState v. Alston, 131 N.C. App. 514, 519, 508 S.E.2d 315, 318 (1998) (citations omitted). Here, because the gun was not found on defendant\u2019s person, the State was required to offer evidence that defendant constructively possessed the revolver.\n\u201cWhen, as here, the defendant did not have exclusive control of the location where contraband is found, \u2018constructive possession of the contraband materials may not be inferred without other incriminating circumstances.\u2019 \u201d State v. Clark, 159 N.C. App. 520, 525, 583 S.E.2d 680, 683 (2003) (quoting State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 569, 313 S.E.2d 585, 589 (1984)). \u201c[T]he mere fact that [a] defendant was in a car where a gun was found is insufficient standing alone to establish constructive possession.\u201d Id. (citing Alston, 131 N.C. App. at 519, 508 S.E.2d at 318). Thus, the mere fact that defendant was in a car next to where a gun was found is not enough to establish constructive possession.\nHere, defendant allegedly confessed to Officer VanLenten that the gun belonged to him. However, defendant asserts that this confession was the only evidence that the State offered to establish possession or ownership, which was not sufficient because \u201cthe State may not rely solely on the extrajudicial confession of a defendant to prove his or her guilt; other corroborating evidence is needed to convict for a criminal offense.\u201d State v. Smith, 362 N.C. 583, 592, 669 S.E.2d 299, 305 (2008) (citation omitted). This is the \u201ctraditional\u201d corpus delicti rule, and it is applicable in \u201ccases in which there is some evidence aliunde the confession which, when considered with the confession, will tend to support a finding that the crime charged occurred.\u201d State v. Trexler, 316 N.C. 528, 532, 342 S.E.2d 878, 880 (1986).\nThe rule does not require that the evidence aliunde the confession prove any element of the crime. The corpus delicti rule only requires evidence aliunde the confession which, when considered with the confession, supports the confes sion and permits a reasonable inference that the crime occurred.... The independent evidence must touch or be concerned with the corpus delicti.\nId. at 532, 342 S.E.2d at 880-81. In Smith, our Supreme Court explained the current bounds of the corpus delicti rule, particularly as it expanded the rule in State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222, 337 S.E.2d 487 (1985):\nIn Parker, North Carolina joined the national trend expanding the corpus delicti rule to allow a defendant\u2019s extrajudicial confession to sustain a conviction when the trustworthiness of the confession is substantiated by evidence aliunde. 315 N.C. 222, 337 S.E.2d 487. Parker held that in noncapital cases, a conviction can stand if \u201cthe accused\u2019s confession is supported by substantial independent evidence tending to establish its trustworthiness, including facts that tend to show the defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime.\u201d Id. at 236, 337 S.E.2d at 495. Furthermore, Parker emphasizes \u201cthat when independent proof of loss or injury is lacking, there must be strong corroboration of essential facts and circumstances embraced in the defendant\u2019s confession.\u201d Id.\nSmith, 362 N.C. at 592, 669 S.E.2d at 306. \u201cThe expanded rule enunciated in Parker applies in cases in which such independent proof is lacking but where there is substantial independent evidence tending to furnish strong corroboration of essential facts contained in defendant\u2019s confession so as to establish trustworthiness of the confession.\u201d Trexler, 316 N.C. at 532, 342 S.E.2d at 881 (citations omitted); see, e.g., Parker, 315 N.C. at 237, 337 S.E.2d at 495-96 (finding substantial corroborating evidence of the defendant\u2019s extrajudicial confession to two murders when the victims\u2019 bodies were found in the same condition described by the defendant in his confession, the murder weapon and bloody clothing were as described by the defendant, and one victim\u2019s wallet was recovered from a neighbor of the defendant\u2019s girlfriend). \u201cApplying the more traditional definition of corpus delicti, the requirement for corroborative evidence would be met if that evidence tended to establish the essential harm, and it would not be fatal to the State\u2019s case if some elements of the crime were proved solely by the defendant\u2019s confession.\u201d Parker, 315 N.C. at 232, 337 S.E.2d at 493.\nHere, the alleged confession contained no details; the entirety of \u25a0 the confession, as conveyed by Officer VanLenten, was that defendant owned the gun. Thus, any corroborative evidence under either test would have to tend to establish that defendant owned or possessed the gun. The State did not present such evidence. The State\u2019s evidence did tend to show that the gun came from inside the car, but defendant was not the only person in the car; indeed, there were three other people inside the car. The gun was found on the driver\u2019s side of the car, not the passenger\u2019s side where defendant was sitting, and the gun was ten or twelve feet away from the car. Officer VanLenten did not see any of the passengers throw anything out of the windows following White\u2019s departure from the driver\u2019s seat. When Officer VanLenten approached the car, defendant was still sitting in his seat, rolling a marijuana cigarette; nothing about his demeanor or appearance suggested that he had just thrown a firearm through the body of the car and out the open car door and into the grass ten or twelve feet away. Thus, the only evidence that defendant possessed the gun was the extrajudicial confession, which alone is not sufficient to support the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon. Accordingly, the trial court erred by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nDefendant next argues that the trial court improperly allowed the State\u2019s witnesses to testify that the green vegetable matter found in defendant\u2019s lap was marijuana. We disagree.\nBoth Officer VanLenten and Officer McNeil testified that the green vegetable matter in defendant\u2019s lap was marijuana. Defendant argues that this was improper because neither officer was tendered as an expert witness and neither testified that he had conducted a chemical analysis of the substance. Instead, they testified that the substance was marijuana based on observation, training, and experience.\n\u201c[T]his Court has previously held that a police officer experienced in the identification of marijuana may testify to his visual identification of evidence as marijuana[.]\u201d State v. Garnett,_N.C. App._,_, 706 S.E.2d 280, 286, disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 200, 710 S.E.2d 31 (2011). Although we have acknowledged that in such circumstances \u201cit would have been better for the State to have introduced admissible evidence of chemical analysis of the substance,\u201d failing to introduce such evidence is not fatal. Id. (quoting State v. Fletcher, 92 N.C. App. 50, 57, 373 S.E.2d 681, 686 (1988)). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err by allowing the two officers to identify the green vegetable matter as marijuana based on their observation, training, and experience.\nIn conclusion, we reverse defendant\u2019s conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon and find no error as to his conviction for possession of marijuana.\nReversed in part; no error in part.\nJudges BRYANT and STEPHENS concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ELMORE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper; by Assistant Attorney General LeAnn Martin, for the State.", "Irving Joyner for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD PRINCEGERALD COX\nNo. COA11-609\n(Filed 7 February 2012)\n1. Firearms and Other Weapons \u2014 possession by felon \u2014 insufficient evidence\nThe trial court erred in a possession of a firearm by a felon case by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence. The only evidence that defendant possessed the gun was his extrajudicial confession, which alone was not sufficient to support the charge.\n2. Evidence \u2014 police officer testimony \u2014 visual identification\u2014 substance marijuana\nThe trail court did not err in a possession of marijuana case by improperly allowing two police officers to testify that the green vegetable matter found in defendant\u2019s lap was marijuana. A police officer experienced in the identification of marijuana may testify to his visual identification of evidence as marijuana and although it would have been better for the State to have introduced admissible evidence of chemical analysis of the substance, failing to introduce such evidence was not fatal.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 15 September 2010 by Judge Charles H. Henry in Wayne County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 November 2011.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper; by Assistant Attorney General LeAnn Martin, for the State.\nIrving Joyner for defendant." }, "file_name": "0583-01", "first_page_order": 593, "last_page_order": 599 }