State v. Bridges
| Decision Date | 06 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. COA17-579,COA17-579 |
| Citation | 810 S.E.2d 365,257 N.C.App. 732 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Stephanie BRIDGES, Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Durwin P. Jones, for the State.
The Epstein Law Firm PLLC, by Drew Nelson, Raleigh, for the Defendant.
Stephanie Bridges ("Defendant") appeals the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding her guilty of multiple drug-related offenses. Defendant challenges her conviction for possession of methamphetamine, arguing that the State failed to present evidence of the chemical nature of the substance found on her person. Because Defendant admitted the contraband nature of the substance to the arresting officer, we hold there was no error.
The evidence at trial tended to show the following:
Police investigated a parked car and discovered a "white crystalline substance" in the passenger compartment. Police then arrested Defendant, who had been sitting in the driver’s seat of the car, and transported her to a detention center. On the way, Defendant admitted to a detective that she had "a baggy of meth hidden in her bra." Once Defendant arrived at the center, an officer found a bag of a "crystal-like" substance in Defendant’s bra during a search.
One of the arresting officers testified at trial, without objection, to Defendant’s statement regarding the methamphetamine in her bra: "[Defendant] told me that she had a baggy of meth hidden in her bra." The State admitted the crystal-like substance found in Defendant’s bra as an exhibit. However, the State did not present any testimony empirically describing the chemical composition of the substance.
Defendant moved to dismiss all charges based on the insufficiency of the State’s evidence, which was denied by the trial court. The jury ultimately convicted her of possession of methamphetamine. Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motions to dismiss the charge of possession of methamphetamine. Specifically, Defendant argues that the State failed to satisfy its burden of proof by failing to offer any evidence establishing the chemical identity of the substance. Although the State offered no empirical evidence of the contraband nature of the substance, we must disagree with Defendant’s contentions based on controlling jurisprudence from our Supreme Court.
"To survive a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, the State must present substantial evidence of all the material elements of the offense charged and that the defendant was the perpetrator of the offense." State v. Campbell , 368 N.C. 83, 87, 772 S.E.2d 440, 444 (2015).
Crimes for possession of a controlled substance, such as methamphetamine1 , require proof that (1) the defendant, in fact, possessed a controlled substance ; and (2) the defendant knew the substance she possessed was a controlled substance. See State v. Galaviz-Torres , 368 N.C. 44, 48, 772 S.E.2d 434, 437 (2015). Regarding the proof sufficient to establish the presence of the first element, our Supreme Court has held that "some form of scientifically valid chemical analysis is required" unless "the State establishes before the trial court that another method of identification is sufficient to establish the identity of the controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt[.]" State v. Ward , 364 N.C. 133, 147, 694 S.E.2d 738, 747 (2010) (emphasis added).
Here, Defendant argues that her alleged admission to the arresting officer may be evidence that she believed she was possessing methamphetamine, thus satisfying the second element, but that the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove the first element, that the substance Defendant believed she possessed was, in fact, methamphetamine. The only evidence offered by the State to prove that the substance was, in fact, methamphetamine was (1) the testimony from the arresting officer that Defendant stated that she had "meth" in her bra and (2) an exhibit consisting of the actual "crystal-like" substance retrieved from the bra. Defendant contends that, based on our Supreme Court’s 2010 holding in Ward , this evidence was not sufficient to prove the first element, that the substance Defendant possessed was in fact methamphetamine.
In 2011, the year following Ward , our Supreme Court established an exception to the evidentiary rule laid down in its 2010 Ward decision. Specifically, the Court held that "when a defense witness’s testimony characterizes a putative controlled substance as a controlled substance, the defendant cannot on appeal escape the consequences of the testimony in arguing that his motion to dismiss should have been allowed." State v. Nabors , 365 N.C. 306, 313, 718 S.E.2d 623, 627 (2011) (emphasis added); see also State v. Williams , 367 N.C. 64, 69, 744 S.E.2d 125, 128 (2013) (). Defendant argues that Nabors does not apply in the present case because Defendant’s identification of the substance as methamphetamine was admitted through the testimony elicited by the State from a witness for the State.
We, however, are persuaded by our Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Ortiz-Zape , 367 N.C. 1, 743 S.E.2d 156 (2013), decided two years after Nabors , in which that Court concluded that the arresting officer’s testimony offered without objection during the State’s evidence concerning the defendant’s out-of-court statement that (s)he was in possession of an illegal substance was sufficient to meet the State’s burden of proof with respect to the first element of the crime of possession. Specifically, the Ortiz-Zape case involved a defendant who was arrested for possessing cocaine shortly after he purchased a white powdery substance. At trial, the State offered (1) evidence of a chemical lab analysis which identified the substance as cocaine; (2) the testimony of the arresting officer, who stated on direct examination, without objection, that the defendant had admitted to him that the substance was cocaine, and (3) the testimony of this same arresting officer, both on direct and cross-examination, that the substance appeared to him to be cocaine. Id. at 14, 743 S.E.2d at 164–65.
On appeal to our Supreme Court, the defendant argued that the evidence of the chemical lab analysis was inadmissible because the testifying expert was not the same person who had performed the chemical lab analysis, in violation of the Confrontation Clause. Id. at 2, 743 S.E.2d at 157.
In a 4–2 decision, our Supreme Court upheld the defendant’s conviction. Though the Court was divided, all of the justices agreed that the testimony of the arresting officer during the State’s direct examination concerning the defendant’s out-of-court admission was sufficient to meet the State’s burden as to the first element of possession.2
For instance, the majority in Ortiz-Zape —in an opinion written by Justice (now Chief Justice) Martin—held that the expert testimony regarding the chemical lab analysis was properly admitted. Id. at 13, 743 S.E.2d at 164. The majority, though, further stated that even if the admission of the expert testimony concerning the chemical lab report was error, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt since other evidence was admitted concerning the identity of the drug in two different forms: (1) the arresting officer’s testimony, which was not objected to, regarding defendant’s out-of-court admission, and (2) the officer’s own opinion concerning the drug’s identity during the defendant’s cross-examination :
Id. at 13–14, 743 S.E.2d at 164–65 (emphasis added).3 In sum, the majority suggests that (1) a defendant’s out-of-court admission offered through the testimony of a State’s witness (at least where there is no objection lodged) is sufficient to meet the State’s burden, (2) an officer’s own opinion concerning the substance’s identity elicited by the defendant on cross-examination is sufficient to meet the State’s burden, and (3) both statements, taken together, render any error in admitting the expert testimony concerning the chemical lab report harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Likewise, the dissenting opinion in Ortiz-Zape —authored by Justice Hudson—suggests a view that the arresting officer’s testimony concerning the defendant’s out-of-court admission was sufficient to prove the first element, at least where the defense does not object to such testimony. These justices dissented, though, because they believed that the admission of the chemical lab report testimony was error and that the officer’s testimony, though sufficient to get to the jury, was not so overwhelming to deem the admission of the chemical lab report harmless beyond a reasonable doubt:
[Without the testimony of the expert witness concerning the chemical lab report,] all that remains is an uncorroborated assertion by an officer on the witness stand that defendant agreed the substance was cocaine. Yet defendant also testified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Osborne
...The Court of Appeals observed that it had attempted "to synthesize this line of cases into a coherent rule of law" in State v. Bridges , 810 S.E.2d 365 (N.C. Ct. App.), disc. rev. denied , 371 N.C. 339, 813 S.E.2d 856 (2018), in which a police officer's unobjected to testimony that the defe......
- State v. Blagg
- State v. Coley
-
State v. Sasek
...the crimes of possession with intent to sell or deliver a schedule II substance and sale of methamphetamine. See State v. Bridges , 257 N.C. App. 732, 733, 810 S.E.2d 365, 367, review denied, 371 N.C. 339, 813 S.E.2d 856 (2018) ; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(a)(1) (2017). Methamphetamine is a sc......