{ "id": 4725415, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EVELYN McLAURIN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. McLaurin", "decision_date": "1987-07-07", "docket_number": "No. 249PA86", "first_page": "143", "last_page": "147", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "320 N.C. 143" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "260 S.E. 2d 591", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "602" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 640", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573829 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "656-57" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0640-01" ] }, { "cite": "291 S.E. 2d 607", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "615" }, { "page": "615" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567420 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "74-75" }, { "page": "75" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 779", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "784", "parenthetical": "close physical proximity of defendant to marijuana sufficient for jury to conclude it was in defendant's possession" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573959 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "130", "parenthetical": "close physical proximity of defendant to marijuana sufficient for jury to conclude it was in defendant's possession" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "313 S.E. 2d 585", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589" }, { "page": "587" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "310 N.C. 563", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2395265 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "569" }, { "page": "566" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/310/0563-01" ] }, { "cite": "298 S.E. 2d 372", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "375" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 452", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562705 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "455" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0452-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 706", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "714" }, { "page": "714" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573594 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "12" }, { "page": "12" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 S.E. 2d 696", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "698" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 735", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569859 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "738" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0735-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 490, "char_count": 8375, "ocr_confidence": 0.829, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.672412685280296e-07, "percentile": 0.9491893156705276 }, "sha256": "05129fe29dde1324e190383b636f9758c1326b6c840469432aab5af0e342f1af", "simhash": "1:ab03b9396047c15e", "word_count": 1365 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:33:25.134905+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justice WEBB did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EVELYN McLAURIN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WHICHARD, Justice.\nDefendant was tried for conspiracy to traffic in heroin, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court dismissed the conspiracy charge at the close of the State\u2019s evidence. The jury acquitted defendant on the possession of cocaine charge but found her guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia. The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, found no error. We reverse for insufficiency of the evidence.\nAs part of an undercover investigation, agents from the State Bureau of Investigation were posted to watch a house at 106 Star hill Avenue in Fayetteville on 19 January 1984. At defendant\u2019s trial, a police officer testified that the agents had seen two men, Edward McLaurin and Horace King, enter and leave the house. These two men were later arrested for their roles in illegal drug transactions exposed by the investigation.\nPursuant to a search warrant, officers combed the Starhill Avenue house the evening of 19 January 1984. In the kitchen the officers found a set of Deering scales, which one officer testified are \u201coften found and associated with measuring drugs for sale.\u201d The scales, a brown vial found in the pocket of a man\u2019s overcoat hanging in a closet near the living room, and a plastic baggie found on a bar between the living and dining rooms all bore traces of a white powder later tested and determined to be cocaine residue. A box containing a spoon, eighteen small tinfoil squares, and a plastic bag were found in a drawer full of children\u2019s clothing in a bedroom apparently occupied by children. The officer testified that he was familiar with the use of tinfoil squares to package cocaine or, more typically, heroin.\nIn a crawl space beneath the house, officers found three marked one hundred dollar bills from the undercover drug transaction that had occurred earlier in the day, and, in the bushes behind the house, they found a bar of mannitol, which one officer testified is sometimes used as a cutting agent in the manufacture of heroin.\nIn addition to the drug paraphernalia, the officers seized photographs of defendant and Edward McLaurin. The officers also seized a notice of reduction in payments of aid to dependent children and a Medicaid identification card bearing the name of \u201cEvelyn McNeill.\u201d Upon her arrest, defendant gave her name as \u201cEvelyn McNeill McLaurin\u201d and her address as 106 Starhill Avenue.\nDefendant presented no evidence at trial. She moved for dismissal at the close of the State\u2019s evidence. As indicated above, the trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion only as to the charge of conspiracy to traffic in heroin, and defendant was acquitted of a charge of possession of cocaine. She was convicted of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia and sentenced to two years imprisonment.\nThe Court of Appeals held that the trial court had properly denied defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charge of possessing drug paraphernalia, since the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that defendant had constructive possession of the seized paraphernalia. It also held that guns seized pursuant to the same warrant were properly admitted because they were relevant to the dismissed charge of conspiracy to traffic in heroin. We reverse as to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia; we thus need not reach the question of whether the guns were properly admitted.\nDefendant was convicted of violating N.C.G.S. \u00a7 90-113.22, which provides, in pertinent part: N.C.G.S. \u00a7 90-113.22 (1985). A person has actual possession when she has \u201cboth the power and the intent to control . . . disposition or use.\u201d State v. Baxter, 285 N.C. 735, 738, 208 S.E. 2d 696, 698 (1974); State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1, 12, 187 S.E. 2d 706, 714 (1972). This Court has recognized numerous times that constructive possession is sufficient for purposes of the statute: \u201cWhere such materials are found on the premises under the control of an accused, this fact, in and of itself, gives rise to an inference of knowledge and possession which may be sufficient to carry the case to the jury on a charge of unlawful possession.\u201d State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. at 12, 187 S.E. 2d at 714. See, e.g., State v. Williams, 307 N.C. 452, 455, 298 S.E. 2d 372, 375 (1983). It is not necessary to show that an accused has exclusive control of the premises where paraphernalia are found, but \u201cwhere possession ... is nonexclusive, constructive possession . . . may not be inferred without other incriminating circumstances.\u201d State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 569, 313 S.E. 2d 585, 589 (1984). Cf. State v. Spencer, 281 N.C. 121, 130, 187 S.E. 2d 779, 784 (1972) (close physical proximity of defendant to marijuana sufficient for jury to conclude it was in defendant\u2019s possession).\n(a) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly use, or to possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to . . . manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, package, repackage, store, contain, or conceal a controlled substance which it would be unlawful to possess.\nThe Court of Appeals correctly noted ample evidence that defendant resided at 106 Starhill Avenue and that she was in control of the premises. That control, however, was patently nonexclusive: Edward McLaurin and Horace King had both been observed entering and leaving the day of the search, there was no evidence that defendant was so observed, and the presence of children\u2019s and adult male clothes in closets and bureaus indicated that defendant did not reside there alone. No other incriminating circumstances were cited by the Court of Appeals and none are apparent in the record that might suffice to carry the case to the jury on the charge of unlawful possession.\nIn determining whether to grant a defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss, the trial court must consider all the evidence admitted in the light most favorable to the State and decide whether there is substantial evidence of each element of the offense charged and that the defendant committed it. State v. LeDuc, 306 N.C. 62, 74-75, 291 S.E. 2d 607, 615 (1982). \u201cSubstantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.\u201d State v. Brown, 310 N.C. at 566, 313 S.E. 2d at 587. \u201cIf the evidence \u2018is sufficient only to raise a suspicion or conjecture as to either the commission of the offense or the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of it, the motion for nonsuit should be allowed. . . . This is true even though the suspicion so aroused by the evidence is strong.\u2019 \u201d State v. LeDuc, 306 N.C. at 75, 291 S.E. 2d at 615, quoting In re Vinson, 298 N.C. 640, 656-57, 260 S.E. 2d 591, 602 (1979).\nWe conclude that because defendant\u2019s control over the premises in which the paraphernalia were found was nonexclusive, and because there was no evidence of other incriminating circumstances linking her to those items, her control was insufficiently substantial to support a conclusion of her possession of the seized paraphernalia. Accordingly, we hold that it was error not to grant defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss at the close of the State\u2019s evidence. The decision of the Court of Appeals holding otherwise is there1 fore\nReversed.\nJustice WEBB did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "WHICHARD, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Augusta B. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by Geoffrey G. Mangum, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EVELYN McLAURIN\nNo. 249PA86\n(Filed 7 July 1987)\nNarcotics \u00a7 4.4\u2014 constructive possession of drug paraphernalia \u2014 insufficient evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was insufficient to permit the jury to find that defendant had constructive possession of drug paraphernalia where it showed that defendant\u2019s control over the premises in which the paraphernalia were found was nonexclusive, and where there was no evidence of other incriminating circumstances linking defendant to those items.\nJustice Webb did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.\nON discretionary review of an unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals finding no error in the trial before Farmer, J., at the 13 March 1985 Criminal Session of Superior Court, CUMBERLAND County. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 May 1987.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Augusta B. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nMalcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by Geoffrey G. Mangum, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0143-01", "first_page_order": 175, "last_page_order": 179 }