{ "id": 8524090, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SUPORA WELDON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Weldon", "decision_date": "1983-12-06", "docket_number": "No. 8310SC204", "first_page": "376", "last_page": "379", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "65 N.C. App. 376" } ], "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": "254 S.E. 2d 598", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568512 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "276 S.E. 2d 501", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 N.C. App. 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 2644255 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/51/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 S.E. 2d 486", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "488" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 N.C. App. 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552018 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "213" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/27/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "243 S.E. 2d 918", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "919" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 N.C. App. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553597 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "375" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/36/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S.E. 2d 364", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 171", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596105 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0171-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 379, "char_count": 6650, "ocr_confidence": 0.795, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1159519180358907e-07, "percentile": 0.7638756159142869 }, "sha256": "c864a68c170b6dd26ab055e8dacc8c7dd30615256cf43e9712c50006a7274fe9", "simhash": "1:472ffef5a2551d5a", "word_count": 1107 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:11:09.312138+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Hill and Eagles concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SUPORA WELDON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s first contention is that the trial court erred in allowing testimony that police found heroin in or near her house on two other occasions. She alleges that the evidence was irrelevant, except to show her propensity to commit the offense of felonious possession of heroin. Under the general rule, evidence of other offenses, even those which are of the same nature as the one charged, is inadmissible to prove the commission of the particular crime charged. State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 81 S.E. 2d 364 (1954). In drug cases, however, \u201cevidence of other drug violations is relevant and admissible if it tends to show plan or scheme, disposition to deal in illicit drugs, knowledge of the presence and character of the drug, or presence at and possession of the premises where the drugs are found.\u201d State v. Richardson, 36 N.C. App. 373, 375, 243 S.E. 2d 918, 919 (1978).\nDefendant was charged with violation of G.S. 90-95 which makes it unlawful for any person \u201c[t]o manufacture, sell or deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture, sell or deliver, a controlled substance.\u201d The evidence complained of was expressly offered by the State to show defendant\u2019s \u201cguilty knowledge\u201d of the presence and character of the drugs found during the February 1982 search. It was, therefore, properly admitted.\nDefendant cites State v. Little, 27 N.C. App. 211, 218 S.E. 2d 486 (1975), to support her contention that the other discoveries of heroin were irrelevant on the question of her knowledge of the presence of heroin during the February 1982 search. In Little, the court found no \u201clogical relevancy\u201d where heroin was discovered at the defendant\u2019s apartment seven months after he had been charged with possession of heroin. The second discovery, the court said, amounted to no more than \u201cevidence of an offense of the \u2018same nature.\u2019 \u201d 27 N.C. App. at 213, 218 S.E. 2d at 488. It did not tend to establish the mental state or guilty knowledge of the defendant seven months prior. Id.\nIn the case at bar, however, the evidence of the other discoveries does tend to show defendant\u2019s guilty knowledge. Defendant leased and lived in the house where heroin was found, and she was physically present on the occasion of each search. During the first search, which occurred two months prior to the offense charged, heroin, a needle and syringe, and $648 were found on a table directly in front of defendant. During the last search, which took place three months after the offense, heroin was found at an easily accessible location about five feet from defendant\u2019s back door, and $201 was found on her person. We find that the evidence of the two separate discoveries of heroin at defendant\u2019s house, one occurring two months before the offense charged and the other occurring three months afterward, during which sizeable amounts of money were also found, is admissible to show defendant\u2019s knowledge of the presence and character of the drugs found during the search of her house on 9 February 1982.\nDefendant next contends that the court erred in admitting testimony that her house had the reputation of being a site of illegal drug sale and use. Although this evidence would ordinarily be considered hearsay, this Court has held that evidence concerning the reputation of a place or neighborhood is admissible where it goes to show the intent of the person charged. State v. Lee, 51 N.C. App. 344, 276 S.E. 2d 501 (1981). We find that this evidence was, therefore, admissible to show defendant\u2019s knowledge and intent at the time of the offense.\nFinally, defendant contends that she was improperly cross-examined about prior convictions of liquor violations and about her financial status. We note that the evidence complained of was received without objection from defendant and is now being challenged for the first time on appeal. Defendant has, therefore, waived her right to object to the cross-examination at trial. State v. Wilkins, 297 N.C. 237, 254 S.E. 2d 598 (1979).\nNo error.\nJudges Hill and Eagles concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General George W. Lennon, for the State.", "Lorinzo L. Joyner for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SUPORA WELDON\nNo. 8310SC204\n(Filed 6 December 1983)\n1. Criminal Law 8 34.8; Narcotics \u00a7 3.1\u2014 evidence that heroin found in house on two other occasions properly admitted\nIn a prosecution for trafficking in heroin, the trial court properly admitted testimony that police had found heroin in or near defendant\u2019s house on two other occasions since the evidence was relevant to show defendant\u2019s \u201cguilty knowledge\u201d of the presence and the character of the drugs found. G.S. 90-95.\n2. Narcotics 8 3.1\u2014 testimony of house\u2019s drug reputation \u2014 properly admitted\nIn a prosecution for trafficking in heroin, the trial court properly admitted testimony that defendant\u2019s house had a reputation of being a site of illegal sale and use since the evidence tended to show defendant\u2019s knowledge and intent at the time of the offense.\nAppeal by defendant from Braswell, Judge. Judgment entered 3 August 1982 in Superior Court, WAKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 October 1983.\nOn 8 February 1982 Officers Pollard and Benafield of the Ealeigh police department knocked on the front door of a house owned by Bill Moody, Jr. and leased to defendant. After there was no answer the officers identified themselves and kicked the door open. The officers frisked two black males who were in the living room area and then gave a copy of a search warrant to defendant, who was also present. While searching the house, the officers discovered 30 bindles of heroin. Defendant was then placed under arrest. She was searched, and $449 was found on her person.\nRaleigh police officers had earlier searched defendant\u2019s house pursuant to a search warrant on 9 December 1981. During that search nine bags of heroin were discovered under a sofa while defendant was present. Two bags of marijuana, a needle and syringe, and $648 were found on the living room table in front of defendant.\nOn 30 May 1982 officers returned to the house to conduct another search. During that search, police found a plastic bread wrapper containing bindles of heroin under a trash container about five feet from the rear door of the house. In addition, $201 was found on defendant\u2019s person. Officers who participated in the two searches testified at trial that defendant\u2019s house had the reputation of being a place where heroin and other illegal drugs could be bought or sold.\nDefendant was convicted of trafficking in heroin and was sentenced to 14 years in prison. From that verdict she appeals.\nAttorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General George W. Lennon, for the State.\nLorinzo L. Joyner for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0376-01", "first_page_order": 408, "last_page_order": 411 }