{
  "id": 8550084,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE D. CLONINGER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Cloninger",
  "decision_date": "1978-06-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 7725SC1060",
  "first_page": "22",
  "last_page": "26",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 N.C. App. 22"
    }
  ],
  "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 38",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 N.C. App. 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553980
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/19/0420-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 S.E. 2d 492",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 584",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554532
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/26/0584-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 S.E. 2d 535",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 361",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561421
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0361-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 S.E. 2d 589",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.C. 19",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564626
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/288/0019-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 S.E. 2d 496",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 323",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550891
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/24/0323-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 S.E. 2d 134",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "287 N.C. 530",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564137
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/287/0530-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 S.E. 2d 98",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 91",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548957
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/24/0091-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 S.E. 2d 295",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 313",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553178
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0313-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 418,
    "char_count": 8511,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.809,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6973987045127773e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7002263452425218
    },
    "sha256": "0f0ceaf34518d5fc4c52975343cc2bf1f0967687fb67b67912af625bcd486732",
    "simhash": "1:f30bd6fb86aeb335",
    "word_count": 1474
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:37.287571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges BRITT and ERWIN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE D. CLONINGER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CLARK, Judge.\nOne issue raised by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in failing to charge on lesser included offenses of (1) possession of marijuana with intent to sell and (2) possession of hashish with intent to sell, both Schedule VI controlled substances, in violation of G.S. 90-95(a)(l), as charged in the bills of indictment.\nThe marijuana indictment charged possession with intent to sell of four pounds of marijuana. Possession of more than one ounce of marijuana is a felony under G.S. 90-95(d)(4), and punishable by imprisonment of not more than five years.\nThe hashish indictment charged possession with intent to sell in excess of 0.10 ounce of hashish. Possession of more than 0.10 ounce of hashish is a felony under G.S. 90-95(d)(4), and punishable by imprisonment of not more than five years.\nAll of the evidence tends to show that if defendant possessed these controlled substances, he possessed 572 or 6 pounds of marijuana, and less than one gram (also less than one ounce) of hashish. Thus the evidence would have supported a verdict of possession of more than one ounce of marijuana, a felony under G.S. 90-95(d)(4), but would not have supported a verdict of felony possession of hashish in excess of 0.10 ounce. Absent the intent to sell, the defendant under this evidence could be guilty only of possession of hashish in violation of G.S. 90-95(a)(3), which is a misdemeanor under G.S. 90-95(d)(4).\nThe quantity of marijuana, 572 or 6 pounds, found in the case sub judice was evidence of intent to sell. This court has held that the quantity of the drug seized is an indicator of intent to sell. State v. Mitchell, 27 N.C. App. 313, 219 S.E. 2d 295 (1975); State v. Carriker, 24 N.C. App. 91, 210 S.E. 2d 98 (1975), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 287 N.C. 530, 215 S.E. 2d 134 (1975). However, this evidence of quantity and the other evidence in the case did not compel a verdict of possession with intent to sell. Defendant testified and denied possession of any quantity of illicit drugs. The evidence in this case is not so positive as to the element of intent to sell marijuana that there is no conflicting evidence, as in State v. Carriker, supra.\nPossession of an illicit drug is an element of possession with intent to sell or deliver the drug, and the former is a lesser in-eluded offense of the latter. State v. Aiken, 286 N.C. 202, 209 S.E. 2d 763 (1974); State v. Stanley, 24 N.C. App. 323, 210 S.E. 2d 496 (1974), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 288 N.C. 19, 215 S.E. 2d 589 (1975).\nWhere there is evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt of a lesser degree of the crime included in the bill of indictment, defendant is entitled to have the question submitted to the jury, even when there is no specific prayer for the instruction; and error in failing to do so is not cured by a verdict convicting the defendant of the offense charged, because in such case it cannot be known whether the jury would have convicted of a lesser degree, if the different permissible degrees arising on the evidence had been correctly presented in the charge. State v. Riera, 276 N.C. 361, 172 S.E. 2d 535 (1970); 4 Strong\u2019s, N.C. Index 3d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 115.\nAs to the marijuana charge (77CRS1251) we conclude that under the evidence the trial court properly charged on possession of marijuana with intent to sell as charged, but the court erred in failing to charge on the lesser offense of felony possession of marijuana in excess of one ounce. The indictment alleged possession of four pounds of marijuana with intent to sell. Since all of the evidence was positive as to the quantity found (5V2 or 6 pounds) the court was not required to charge on the lesser offense of misdemeanor possession of marijuana (less than one ounce).\nAs to the hashish charge (77CRS1249), there was no evidence of intent to sell because the quantity was small, less than one gram, and there was no other evidence from which this intent could be inferred. The trial court should not have charged on the crime of possession of hashish with intent to sell, but only on the crime of misdemeanor possession in violation of G.S. 90-95(d)(4), less than one gram.\nDefendant moved to suppress the smoking materials found in his trailer on the ground that the search warrant did not adequately describe the mobile home. There were two other trailers nearby. The search warrant description was as follows: \u201c[T]he mobile home and premises owner [sic] and occupied by Willie Clonninger. [sic] Located at the end of a dirt road, approx 100 yds behind Lindas truck stop . . . .\u201d\nThe search warrant must describe the premises with reasonable certainty. The description is somewhat similar to the description of a mobile home in State v. Woods, 26 N.C. App. 584, 216 S.E. 2d 492 (1975), which held the description was adequate. Further, Officer Colvard testified that he knew the trailer and had seen defendant about the premises on several occasions. In State v. Walsh, 19 N.C. App. 420, 199 S.E. 2d 38 (1973), it was held that the executing officer\u2019s prior knowledge as to the place intended in the warrant is relevant. This assignment is without merit.\nWe do not treat the other assignments of error since they may not recur upon retrial.\nIn 77CRS1251 the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. The State may elect to proceed against the defendant on the charge of possession of marijuana with intent to sell in violation of G.S. 90-95(a)(l), or on the charge of felony possession of marijuana in excess of one ounce in violation of G.S. 90-95(a)(3) and G.S. 90-95(d)(4).\nIn 77CRS1249 the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial on the charge of simple possession of hashish, a misdemeanor in violation of G.S. 90-95(a)(3).\nNew trial.\nJudges BRITT and ERWIN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CLARK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General George J. Oliver for the State.",
      "Michael P. Baumberger for defenda/nt appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE D. CLONINGER\nNo. 7725SC1060\n(Filed 20 June 1978)\n1. Narcotics \u00a7 4.7\u2014 lesser offenses \u2014 failure to instruct \u2014 error\nIn a prosecution for possession with intent to sell marijuana and hashish, the trial court erred in failing to charge on the lesser offense of felony possession of marijuana in excess of one ounce, and the court also erred in instructing on possession of hashish with intent to sell, since the quantity involved was small, less than one gram, and there was no other evidence from which this intent could be inferred.\n2. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 30\u2014 premises to be searched \u2014 adequacy of description\nDescription in a search warrant of the premises to be searched as the mobile home and premises owned and occupied by Willie Cloninger located at the end of a dirt road approximately 100 yards behind Linda\u2019s truck stop, together with the executing officer\u2019s testimony that he knew the trailer and had seen defendant about the premises on several occasions, adequately described the premises to be searched.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Ferrell, Judge. Judgments entered 11 August 1977 in Superior Court, CALDWELL County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 April 1978.\nDefendant pled not guilty to charges of on 22 February 1977 (1) possession with intent to sell and deliver more than 0.10 ounce of hashish and (2) possession with intent to sell four pounds of marijuana, both charges in violation of G.S. 90-95(a)(l).\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that Deputy Sheriff Col-vard knew defendant, that defendant lived in a mobile home, and that he had seen defendant about the premises on several occasions. Colvard obtained a search warrant, went to defendant\u2019s home and searched it, finding a quantity of rolling paper and other marijuana smoking paraphernalia in a closet.\nDeputy Colvard then searched the area and found eighteen blocks of marijuana, each weighing V-k pounds in some tires located about 150 feet from the trailer. Defendant was seen working on junk cars several times near within 10 to 15 feet of where the marijuana was found. A remote television viewer camera attached to defendant\u2019s trailer pointed to the tires in which the marijuana was found. Nearby under an oil pan Colvard found a bottle containing a brown resin (hashish), less than one gram.\nDefendant testified that he did not own and had no knowledge of the marijuana and the hashish, and that he purchased the cigarette paper and other smoking materials for resale by his father.\nDefendant was found guilty as charged and appeals from judgments imposing imprisonment.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General George J. Oliver for the State.\nMichael P. Baumberger for defenda/nt appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0022-01",
  "first_page_order": 50,
  "last_page_order": 54
}
