{ "id": 8550046, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMY McKINNEY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. McKinney", "decision_date": "1974-12-18", "docket_number": "No. 7429SC846", "first_page": "259", "last_page": "263", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "24 N.C. App. 259" } ], "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": "199 S.E. 2d 462", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559946 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0081-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 481, "char_count": 9034, "ocr_confidence": 0.585, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.135771028113528e-07, "percentile": 0.7665141867344389 }, "sha256": "87e865c70909e617359270b48d4264c930ca284efffce0167b680e2836f92d1a", "simhash": "1:2b6d6025febb049f", "word_count": 1492 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:40.635509+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Hedrick concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMY McKINNEY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "CAMPBELL, Judge.\nThe defendant was being tried for the unlawful sale and distribution of a drug, tetrahydrocannabinol. This raises the question as to what this drug is. Stedman\u2019s Medical Dictionary Unabridged Lawyers\u2019 Editon (1961) defines tetrahydrocannabi-nol as, \u201cA highly active constitutent of Cannabis indica.\u201d Cannabis indica in turn is defined as, \u201cIndian hemp; hashish; marijuana; marihuana; the dried flowering tops of the pistillate plants of Cannabis sativa, gathered before the fruits are developed. Narcotic, sedative, analgesic, and aphrodisiac.\u201d\nThe defendant contends that the trial court was in. error in failing to dismiss the action and enter a judgment as of nonsuit.\nIn a criminal case the proper motion to test the sufficiency of the State\u2019s evidence to carry the case to the jury is a motion to dismiss the action or a motion for judgment as in the case of nonsuit pursuant to G.S. 15-173. The sufficiency of the evidence for the State in a criminal case is reviewable upon appeal without regard to whether a motion has been made pursuant to G.S. 15-173 in the trial court. G.S. 15-173.1. From the record in this case, it appears that the defendant did not make any motion at the conclusion of all the evidence. However, we review the sufficiency of the State\u2019s evidence under the provisions of G.S. 15-173.1 as if the proper motion had been made under G.S. 15-173. On such motion the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State, and the State is entitled to every reasonable intendment thereon and every reasonable inference therefrom. Contradictions and discrepancies, even in the State\u2019s evidence, are for the jury to resolve and do not warrant nonsuit. All of the evidence favorable to the State is considered, and defendant\u2019s evidence relating to matters of defense or defendant\u2019s evidence in conflict with that of the State is not considered. To withstand a judgment as of nonsuit there,must be substantial evidence of all material elements of the offense charged. Whether the State has offered such substantial evidence presents a question of law for the trial court. State v. Everette, 284 N.C. 81, 199 S.E. 2d 462 (1973).\nApplying this test, we think the evidence sufficient to carry the case to the jury.\nDr. Ellis was competent to testify concerning facts within his knowledge based upon his actual treatment of Franklin and to render his opinion as to what Franklin was suffering from and for which he was treated. His testimony in this regard was entirely competent.\nDefendant also assigns as error that portion of the charge of the judge to the jury wherein the judge equated tetrahydrocannabinol and \u201cTHC\u201d as being the same thing. The defendant asserts that no witness testified to the fact that the two were the same. We disagree. Dr. Ellis testified that he was familiar with the abbreviation \u201cTHC\u201d and that that abbreviation represents \u201ca substance similar to marijuana like drugs.\u201d We have heretofore pointed out that the dictionary definition of tetrahydrocannabinol defines it as a highly active constitutent of cannabis indica and that cannabis indica in turn is marijuana. When we apply the mathematical axiom that things equal to the same thing are equal to each other, we come up with the answer that \u201cTHC\u201d and tetrahydrocannabinol are one and the same.\nWe have considered the other assignments of error brought forward by the defendant, and we conclude that the defendant had a fair trial free of prejudicial error.\nUnder the defense presented, this case presented a question for the twelve, and they found against the defendant.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Hedrick concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "CAMPBELL, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by Associate Attorney Raymond L. Yasser for the State.", "Story & Hunter by C. Frank Goldsmith, Jr., for the defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMY McKINNEY\nNo. 7429SC846\n(Filed 18 December 1974)\n1. Narcotics \u00a7 4 \u2014 sale of \u201cTHC\u201d \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient for the jury in a prosecution upon two charges of distribution of the controlled substance tetrahydrocannabinol where it tended to show that defendant sold a white substance which he represented to be \u201cTHC\u201d to two different buyers, the first buyer swallowed a pinch of the substance, became dizzy, was hospitalized and had hallucinations for a day, a doctor testified that the first buyer was under the influence of a hallucination drug, that tetrahydrocannabinol could have caused the symptoms he observed, and that \u201cTHC\u201d is \u201ca substance similar to marijuana like drugs,\u201d and the second buyer became dizzy and sick after he tasted the substance he purchased from defendant.\n2. Narcotics \u00a7 3 \u2014 medical testimony \u2014 person under influence of drug \u2014 cause of symptoms\nIn a prosecution for distribution of tetrahydrocannabinol, a medical witness was properly allowed to give his opinion that a State\u2019s witness was under the influence of a hallucination drug on the day after the witness tasted a substance purchased from defendant and to testify that a sufficient quantity of tetrahydrocannabinol could have caused the symptoms he observed.\n3. Narcotics \u00a7 4.5 \u2014 instructions equating tetrahydrocannabinol and \u201cTHC\u201d\nThe trial court did not err in charging the jury that tetrahydro-cannabinol and \u201cTHC\u201d are the same thing since a medical expert testified that the abbreviation \u201cTHC\u201d represents \u201ca substance similar to marijuana like drugs,\u201d and the dictionary defines tetrahydrocannabinol as a highly active constitutent of cannabis indica and defines cannabis indica as marijuana.\nAppeal by defendant from Martin (Harry C.), Judge, April 1974 Session of McDowell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 November 1974.\nDefendant, a 16-year-old school boy, was charged in two separate bills of indictment with unlawfully, wilfully and feloni-ously selling and distributing a controlled substance, i.e., tetrar hydrocannabinol, which is included in Schedule VI of the North Carolina Controlled Substances Act. The defendant pleaded not guilty to both charges.\nThe evidence for the State disclosed that the defendant, on two separate nights, December 9 and 10, 1973, sold what was represented to be \u201cTHC.\u201d In each instance, the buyer, a 15-year-old school boy, working after school, testified that he had asked for \u201cTHC\u201d and the defendant had represented and told them that that was what he was selling. Neither purchaser had ever seen \u201cTHC\u201d before.\nIn the first instance, the buyer, Franklin, bought a small plastic bag of the substance for $10.00 and placed a pinch, about one-fourth of a thimbleful, of the substance in his mouth and swallowed it. He testified it was white and looked like sugar but tasted bitter. He threw the remainder in the trash can as he was scared to have it with him. Before doing so, he showed it to fellow schoolmate and worker, Peppers. Fifteen to twenty minutes later, he became so dizzy that he did not know what he was doing. He had hallucinations and was taken to a doctor who put him in the hospital where he remained for two weeks. He had hallucinations for about one day after taking the \u201cTHC.\u201d\nThe buyer in the second instance, Peppers, testified that he had tasted the same substance sold to Franklin. He testified the substance was white, like sugar crystals, and had a bitter taste. In about 30 or 45 minutes after tasting it, he started getting dizzy and sick but continued at his work until 10:00 p.m. when he went home and to bed. The next night, he also purchased some \u201cTHC\u201d from the defendant for $10.00. He did this at the request of some of his friends and took it to school the next day and gave it to other boys.\n\u2022A Dr. Ellis (an admitted medical expert) testified that he had examined and treated Franklin the day following the night he had allegedly ingested the substance. At that time Franklin was completely incoherent regarding time, place and person and in the doctor\u2019s opinion was acutely psychotic. It was Dr. Ellis\u2019s opinion that he was under the influence of medication or drugs of some type, \u201cmost likely a hallucination drug.\u201d His testimony was that during the examination, Franklin \u201ctalked about horns growing out of his head and he was hearing bells and said he couldn\u2019t hear anything else.\u201d The doctor further testified that tetrahydrocannabinol can be an hallucinogenic drug and if Franklin had had a sufficient quantity of it it could have caused the symptoms he observed. He did not see Franklin after he went to the hospital. He further testified that he was familiar with the abbreviation \u201cTHC\u201d and that it was \u201ca substance similar to marijuana like drugs.\u201d\nAt the end of the State\u2019s case, defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit was denied whereupon the defendant took the stand in his own behalf. He denied all the charges against him asserting that he had never sold nor possessed any drugs.\nFrom a verdict of guilty on both charges and a judgment sentencing the defendant to not less than one nor more than three years, the defendant appealed.\nAttorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by Associate Attorney Raymond L. Yasser for the State.\nStory & Hunter by C. Frank Goldsmith, Jr., for the defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0259-01", "first_page_order": 287, "last_page_order": 291 }