#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES JENKINS MASON

No. 756SC593

(Filed 17 December 1975)

Narcotics § 4.5 — knowledge of possession — instructions

The trial court sufficiently instructed the jury on the question of defendant’s knowledge of possessing marijuana.

Appeal by defendant from Tillery, Judge. Judgment entered 13 March 1975 in Superior Court, Hertford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 October 1975.

Defendant was indicted for the 23 October 1974 possession with the intent to sell marijuana and was found guilty of possession of marijuana. Judgment was entered sentencing defendant as a youthful offender.

According to the State’s evidence, ABC Officer Calvin Pearce observed defendant receive from someone in a van a clear plastic bag containing a green substance. Pearce recalled that defendant “. . . was sitting and talking to a girl outside of the window of the truck at this time. He was flipping the bag back and . . . [forth and] flipping it in his fingers and hands and then passed it back to Dean, who was the driver.” The parties stipulated that the bag contained five grams of marijuana. In the van, authorities found 19 ounces of marijuana, individually packaged in one ounce sandwich bags and two pipes used for smoking marijuana.

*219Defendant claimed that he neither handled nor saw any of the marijuana. Marcia Jones essentially corroborated defendant’s testimony.

Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General George W. Boylan, for the State.

Revelle, Burleson & Lee, by L. Frank Burleson, Jr., for defendant appellant.

MORRIS, Judge.

Defendant candidly concedes that except for his seventh assignment of error he can find no prejudicial error. By his remaining assignment of error defendant contends that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the question of defendant’s “knowledge” of possessing marijuana.

We have examined the charge contextually and find that the trial court’s instructions sufficiently addresses the contention raised by the defendant herein.

We also have reviewed the record as a whole and find no error prejudicial to defendant.

No error.

Judges Parker and Martin concur.