State v. Chavis, 676
| Citation | 154 S.E.2d 340,270 N.C. 306 |
| Decision Date | 10 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 676,676 |
| Parties | STATE, v. Albert CHAVIS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Staff Attorney Ralph White, Jr., Raleigh, for the State.
James R. Nance, Jr., Fayetteville, for defendant appellant.
G.S. § 90--88 provides: 'It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, Possess, have under his control, sell, prescribe, administer, dispense, or compound any narcotic drug, except as authorized in this article.' (Our italics.) Marijuana (marihuana) is a narcotic drug and so defined in G.S. § 90--87(1) and (9). Defendant is charged with the unlawful Possession thereof.
The State contends envelopes containing marijuana found in an upturned hat in a grassy area between the cinder block dwelling and Bragg Boulevard Had been in the possession of defendant. Obviously, defendant did not have possession of the hat or envelopes or marijuana at the time of his arrest on Saturday, April 30, 1966.
The State's case rests primarily upon evidence tending to show that the hat in and on which the envelopes containing marijuana were found was the identical hat defendant was wearing when he, walking along the sidewalk, passed in front of Officers Boone and Truitt. Obviously, proof of this evidential fact beyond a reasonable doubt was a prerequisite to the establishment of defendant's guilt.
If the circumstantial evidence in its entirety were deemed sufficient to withstand defendant's motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit, an application of the law to the facts arising on the evidence as provided in G.S. § 1--180 would require that the presiding judge instruct the jury that proof of such fact beyond a reasonable doubt was a prerequisite to a verdict of guilty. However, proof of such evidential fact would not, standing alone, warrant a verdict of guilty. To establish defendant was guilty as charged, it was incumbent upon the State to satisfy the jury from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the marijuana in the envelopes found by Officer Boone was in defendant's possession either in the hat he was wearing or elsewhere about his person. With reference to nonsuit, the critical inquiry is whether marijuana found by Officer Boone was in the possession of defendant when he was first observed and followed by the officers.
There is no evidence that either officer observed defendant make any disposition of the hat he had been wearing or of any article or articles he may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vestal
...it, the evidence is not sufficient and the motion for judgment of nonsuit should be allowed. State v. Cutler, supra; State v. Chavis, 270 N.C. 306, 154 S.E.2d 340. The evidence in the present record, so considered, is sufficient to support, though not necessarily to require, findings as 1. ......
-
State v. Barnes
...the pants he was wearing, in which the envelope was found to which the gleanings of marijuana adhered.7 See, e.g.: State v. Chavis, 270 N.C. 306, 154 S.E.2d 340 (1967) (Evidence insufficient to support conviction when uncertain, inter alia, whether the defendant knew marijuana was in the ha......
-
State v. Perry
...the same was in his possession.' 281 N.C. at 12-13, 187 S.E.2d at 714 (citations omitted). Defendant relies heavily on State v. Chavis, 270 N.C. 306, 154 S.E.2d 340 (1967). There defendant was convicted of felonious possession of marijuana. The State offered evidence tending to show that of......
-
Kinlaw v. Long Mfg. N. C., Inc., 33
......B. Matthis, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., and James C. Gulick, Associate Atty., Raleigh, for the state, amicus curiae. EXUM, Justice. This is an action to recover damages ......