{ "id": 8524240, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JERRY WILLIAMS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williams", "decision_date": "1984-11-06", "docket_number": "No. 838SC1307", "first_page": "136", "last_page": "140", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "71 N.C. App. 136" } ], "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": "234 S.E. 2d 555", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 N.C. 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571279 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/292/0513-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 S.E. 2d 916", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 302", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571715, 8571782, 8571688, 8571752, 8571822 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0302-02", "/nc/298/0302-04", "/nc/298/0302-01", "/nc/298/0302-03", "/nc/298/0302-05" ] }, { "cite": "255 S.E. 2d 654", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 N.C. App. 729", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551827 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/41/0729-01" ] }, { "cite": "296 S.E. 2d 473", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 N.C. App. 99", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525868 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/59/0099-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 S.E. 2d 696", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 735", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569859 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0735-01" ] }, { "cite": "236 S.E. 2d 190", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 N.C. App. 684", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552066 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/33/0684-01" ] }, { "cite": "292 S.E. 2d 572", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 589", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572365, 8572335, 8572400, 8572307, 8572436 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0589-03", "/nc/305/0589-02", "/nc/305/0589-04", "/nc/305/0589-01", "/nc/305/0589-05" ] }, { "cite": "286 S.E. 2d 368", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 N.C. App. 603", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527704 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/55/0603-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E. 2d 554", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 N.C. App. 290", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520627 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/61/0290-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 522, "char_count": 10512, "ocr_confidence": 0.811, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4626740522575944e-07, "percentile": 0.65762096554664 }, "sha256": "82e583df7adb3112fca1b8a50bc88213562d6a92185df448acddfc6aac5491f9", "simhash": "1:46cbc468474e0578", "word_count": 1727 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:51:06.115640+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Webb and Braswell concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JERRY WILLIAMS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nI\nDefendant first assigns as error the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion to suppress the marijuana seized from his jacket. We find no error.\nDefendant asserts that the trial court failed to find that there was probable cause to search defendant\u2019s vehicle or that defendant had drugs in his possession or was committing a crime. We note, however, that the trial court concluded, based on the evidence, that defendant voluntarily discarded and abandoned his jacket along with any expectation of privacy with respect to the jacket. The jacket was dropped in a public place and defendant continued to flee the area. Therefore, it was not necessary for the trial court to find that there was probable cause to search defendant\u2019s vehicle, that defendant had drugs in his possession, or that defendant was committing a crime. Further, in light of the evidence presented by the State, it was not error for the trial court to conclude as a matter of law that defendant had abandoned any expectation of privacy in his jacket. State v. Teltser, 61 N.C. App. 290, 300 S.E. 2d 554 (1983).\nII\nDefendant next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based upon \u201ca flagrant violation of defendant\u2019s constitutional rights.\u201d We disagree.\nDefendant cites no authority for this proposition but argues that since the detective \u201cjumped out of his vehicle with his weapon in his hand, and discharged the weapon by pulling the trigger\u201d that defendant\u2019s rights under the Fourth Amendment were violated. Defendant characterizes these actions as \u201cgestapo like.\u201d\nThe State\u2019s evidence tends to show that the detectives went to the carwash based on reliable information, that the defendant had marijuana in his possession, that the defendant began to flee when approached by the detectives, that the detective gave chase after identifying himself as a law enforcement officer and ordering defendant to halt, and that the detective then stumbled while in pursuit, causing his service revolver to accidentally discharge. We have examined the record carefully and find no violation of any rights conferred upon defendant by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. While the detective may have been clumsy in the handling of his weapon, there was no evidence to indicate that the detective intentionally fired his weapon at the fleeing defendant.\nIII\nDefendant next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for the disclosure of the name of the alleged confidential informant. We disagree.\nAgain, defendant cites no authority in support of his argument. However, we note that unless the disclosure of an informer\u2019s identity is relevant and helpful to the defense of the accused or is essential to a fair determination of the case, the defendant is not ordinarily entitled to disclosure of an informer\u2019s identity. State v. Cherry, 55 N.C. App. 603, 286 S.E. 2d 368, rev. denied, 305 N.C. 589, 292 S.E. 2d 572 (1982). Here, defendant has made no showing that the identity of the informant would be essential, relevant, or even helpful to defendant. Defendant shows no prejudice by the trial court\u2019s refusal to order disclosure of the identity of the informant.\nIV\nDefendant next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for an in-camera inspection of a police report discovered during examination of a law enforcement witness. We disagree.\nWhile examining a law enforcement witness, defendant discovered that the witness had prepared a report of the incident in question for the sheriff. Defendant alleges that this violated the continuing duty to disclose pursuant to G.S. 15A-907. However, G.S. 15A-904 provides that internal reports of law enforcement officers are not subject to disclosure. See also, State v. Gillespie, 33 N.C. App. 684, 236 S.E. 2d 190 (1977).\nV\nDefendant next argues that the trial court committed error in refusing to dismiss the first count of the indictment. We disagree.\nCount one of the indictment charges that defendant unlawfully and willfully possessed marijuana with the intent to sell and deliver. The basis of defendant\u2019s argument is that the amount of marijuana, 27.6 grams (there are 28.35 grams in one ounce), recovered from defendant\u2019s jacket is insufficient to raise a presumption that the marijuana was possessed for sale and delivery, a felony. Defendant cites G.S. 90-95(d) in support of his argument which provides a maximum punishment of a fine not to exceed more than $100.00 for the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. Defendant\u2019s argument would be persuasive except for the evidence of how the 27.6 grams of marijuana was packaged. The evidence at trial showed that the marijuana in question was packaged in seventeen separate, small brown envelopes known in street terminology as \u201cnickel or dime bags.\u201d \u201cNickel or dime bags\u201d are the units in which small amounts of marijuana are generally sold for five or ten dollars. The method of packaging a controlled substance, as well as the amount of the substance, may constitute evidence from which a jury can infer an intent to distribute. State v. Baxter, 285 N.C. 735, 208 S.E. 2d 696 (1974); see also State v. Casey, 59 N.C. App. 99, 296 S.E. 2d 473 (1982). While it is true that there was no direct evidence that defendant possessed the 27.6 grams of marijuana for sale and delivery, the circumstances of the packaging could be considered by the jury in finding defendant guilty of the felony offense. See, State v. Childers, 41 N.C. App. 729, 255 S.E. 2d 654, cert. denied, 298 N.C. 302, 259 S.E. 2d 916 (1979).\nVI\nDefendant next argues that the trial court erred in refusing to submit a requested instruction as to the mere fact of fleeing from the detective.\nDefendant cites no authority for the proposition advanced herein and fails to show how he was prejudiced by the refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury as defendant requested. We find nothing in the record that would lead us to conclude that defendant was entitled to the requested instruction. Any error that might have been committed in refusing defendant\u2019s proffered instruction is harmless. The result here might be different if the trial court had instructed the jury that an acc&Sed\u2019s flight from the scene of a crime is competent evidence on a question of guilt. State v. Jones, 292 N.C. 513, 234 S.E. 2d 555 (1977). However, such an instruction was not requested by the State nor was it given by the trial court.\nFor the reasons herein mentioned, we find no error in the trial of this case. Defendant\u2019s further assignments of error are without merit.\nNo error.\nJudges Webb and Braswell concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "EAGLES, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Dennis P. Myers for the State.", "John E. Duke, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JERRY WILLIAMS\nNo. 838SC1307\n(Filed 6 November 1984)\n1. Searches and Seizures 8 3\u2014 search of abandoned jacket\nThe trial court properly found that defendant abandoned any expectation of privacy in his jacket when he dropped it in a public place while fleeing from officers, and marijuana found during a search of the jacket was admissible in evidence without any finding as to probable cause for the search.\n2. Constitutional Law 8 28\u2014 officer\u2019s accidental firing of revolver \u2014no constitutional violation\nAn officer's accidental discharge of his revolver while chasing the fleeing defendant did not constitute a flagrant violation of defendant\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights requiring a dismissal of a charge against defendant for possession of marijuana with intent to sell and deliver.\n3. Constitutional Law 8 67\u2014 identity of informant\nIn a prosecution for possession of marijuana with intent to sell and deliver, the trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion for the disclosure of the name of a confidential informant where defendant made no showing that the identity of the informant was essential, relevant or even helpful to his defense.\n4. Constitutional Law 8 30\u2014 police report \u2014 denial of in-camera inspection\nThe trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion for an in-camera inspection of a police report discovered during examination of a law officer, since internal reports of law officers are not subject to disclosure. G.S. 15A-904.\n5. Narcotics 8 4\u2014 intent to sell and deliver marijuana \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nAlthough evidence that 27.6 grams of marijuana were found in defendant\u2019s jacket was insufficient to raise a presumption that the marijuana was possessed for sale and delivery, evidence that the marijuana was packaged in seventeen separate, small brown envelopes known in street terminology as \u201cnickel or dime bags\u201d was sufficient to permit the jury to find that the marijuana was possessed for the purpose of sale and delivery. G.S. 90-95(d).\n6. Criminal Law 8 46\u2014 mere fact of flight \u2014 refusal to give requested instructions\nThe trial court did not err in refusing to give defendant\u2019s requested instruction as to the mere fact of fleeing from a detective.\nAppeal by defendant from Strickland, Judge. Judgment entered 26 August 1983 in Superior Court, WAYNE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 September 1984.\nThis is a criminal case in which defendant was convicted at a jury trial of felonious possession of marijuana with intent to sell and deliver in violation of G.S. 90-95.\nOn 26 April 1983, two detectives of the Wayne County Sheriffs Department were approached by a confidential informant who advised the detectives that defendant was in possession of marijuana.\nThe two detectives operating an unmarked pickup truck, drove into the parking area of a carwash at which defendant and another male were sitting in defendant\u2019s automobile. Before the pickup truck was fully stopped, the defendant got out of his automobile and ran. One of the detectives identified himself as a sheriffs deputy and shouted a command for defendant to halt. Defendant allegedly dropped a jacket he had been wearing and continued to run. A shot was fired from the service revolver of the pursuing detective. The State\u2019s evidence tended to show the discharge of the service revolver was accidental. The discarded jacket was discovered to contain 17 individual brown envelopes containing marijuana which had a total weight of 27.6 grams. Defendant was later arrested, indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to four years in the custody of the Department of Corrections. The other individual who had been sitting in defendant\u2019s car jumped a nearby fence and fled. He was not apprehended.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Dennis P. Myers for the State.\nJohn E. Duke, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0136-01", "first_page_order": 170, "last_page_order": 174 }