{
  "id": 8547759,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMI WADE SHAW",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Shaw",
  "decision_date": "1975-12-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 754SC504",
  "first_page": "207",
  "last_page": "209",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 207"
    }
  ],
  "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": "197 S.E. 2d 891",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 N.C. App. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550697
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/19/0109-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 S.E. 2d 481",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 191",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558300
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0191-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 S.E. 2d 763",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 N.C. 202",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564176
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/286/0202-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 364,
    "char_count": 5530,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.568,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.2121681553077657e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32926456330079473
    },
    "sha256": "bbf24911b39995826aa685c447b982fa5b74b8d853838f591e65a33acc0c1cb3",
    "simhash": "1:45eff4e9133edfd4",
    "word_count": 907
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMI WADE SHAW"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nDefendant first contends that the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury that their verdict in one case in no way depended on their verdict in any other case. We disagree. In several recent decisions our Supreme Court has held that possession of controlled substances with the intent to distribute and the actual distribution of the controlled substances constitute separate and distinct offenses. State v. Aiken, 286 N.C. 202, 209 S.E. 2d 763 (1974) ; State v. Cameron, 283 N.C. 191, 195 S.E. 2d 481 (1973) ; also see State v. Rush, 19 N.C. App. 109, 197 S.E. 2d 891 (1973).\nAs Justice Lake noted in State v. Aiken, supra, at 206:\n\u201c. . . neither the offense of unauthorized possession nor the offense of unauthorized sale of a controlled substance is included within the other offense and one placed in jeopardy as to the one offense is not thereby placed in jeopardy as to the other. Thus, one charged' with- both offenses may be convicted of both and sentenced to imprisonment for each.\u201d\nThus, the court\u2019s instruction properly reflects the present state of the law in North Carolina.\nDefendant\u2019s brief also notes an alleged inconsistency between the aforesaid charge and a later aspect of the same charge. Notwithstanding defendant\u2019s failure to take proper exception, on the merits we cannot perceive any prejudice to defendant in this charge and find no inconsistency.\nDefendant next contends that the trial court erred in charging the jury as to the elements of constructive possession. We find no merit in these contentions. A reading of the instructions contextually reveals that the court carefully distinguished the various elements of the charges against defendant, adequately defined the various elements and specifically covered the aspects of constructive possession.\nFinally, defendant contends that the court erred in overruling his motion for nonsuit. Again, we disagree. The evidence was plenary to submit the question of defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence to the jury and to support their verdicts.\nNo error.\nJudges Hedrick and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General George W. Boylan, for the State,",
      "Edward G. Bailey for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMI WADE SHAW\nNo. 754SC504\n(Filed 17 December 1975)\n1. Narcotics \u00a7 4.5 \u2014 multiple offenses of possession for sale \u2014 instructions proper\nIn a trial of defendant for felonious possession of LSD with the intent to sell and deliver, felonious sale and delivery of LSD, felonious possession of LSD, and felonious possession of marijuana, the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that their verdict in one case in no way depended on their verdict in any other case.\n2. Narcotics \u00a7 4 \u2014 possession and sale of LSD \u2014 possession of marijuana \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury in a prosecution for possession of LSD with intent to sell, sale of LSD, and possession of marijuana where such evidence tended to show that defendant sold 10 microdots of LSD to an undercover narcotics agent and a search of defendant\u2019s trailer made under a warrant and in defendant\u2019s presence yielded LSD and marijuana in a jacket in a bedroom.\nAppeal by defendant from Tillery, Judge. Judgment entered 20 March 1975. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 September 1975.\nDefendant was indicted for (1) the 30 January 1975 felonious possession of LSD with the intent to sell and deliver; (2) the 30 January 1975 felonious sale and delivery of LSD; (3) the 31 January 1975 felonious possession of LSD; and (4) the 31 January 1975 felonious possession of marijuana.\nAccording to the State\u2019s evidence, Mr. Kenneth L. Jones, while working for the Onslow County Sheriff\u2019s Department in an \u201cundercover\u201d capacity, went to defendant\u2019s trailer home on 30 January 1975 with a man named \u201cHoward.\u201d \u201cHoward asked the defendant if he had any smoke, meaning marijuana. The defendant told him he didn\u2019t but he had some microdot.\u201d Defendant asked Jones if he wanted any of the microdot and when Jones replied \u201cYes\u201d the defendant \u201c. . . told his wife to go get four and she went back in the trailer towards the bedrooms\u201d and brought back, after two trips and further negotiations, a total of \u201c10 microdots\u201d of LSD. The agent paid for the drugs and left the trailer. His purchases were turned over to a chemist for the SBI, and the defendant stipulated that there was no objection to the chain of custody and that if the chemist were present he would testify that the purchases were LSD.\nThe next day/ agentsCfrbm the sheriff\u2019s department, armed with a search warrant, went to defendant\u2019s residence and searched defendant\u2019s trailer with defendant present. The police testified at trial that in the back bedroom they found in the pockets of a jacket, lying on the bed, \u201c9 hits\u201d of LSD and a small amount of marijuana. Though unclear from the record, it appears that at least part of the LSD was found in a small film cannister. Again defendant stipulated that the chemist would testify that the materials found-, were LSD and marijuana.\nDefendant denied selling or possessing the drugs and specifically denied ownership of the jacket. He claimed that the jacket possibly belonged to some friends who previously had visited the defendant. Defendant\u2019s wife essentially corroborated defendant\u2019s testimony.\nFrom pleas of not guilty, the jury returned verdicts of guilty on all four counts. From judgments sentencing him to various terms of imprisonment on the four verdicts, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General George W. Boylan, for the State,\nEdward G. Bailey for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0207-01",
  "first_page_order": 235,
  "last_page_order": 237
}
