State v. Christian
| Decision Date | 07 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | COA22-299 |
| Parties | STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES THOMAS CHRISTIAN, III |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 October 2022.
Appeal by Defendant from judgments entered 7 October 2021 by Judge Gary M. Gavenus in Cleveland County, Nos. 20 CRS 50681-82 Superior Court.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General John P. Barkley, for the State.
Mark L. Hayes, for Defendant.
Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss two charges of trafficking methamphetamine, one charge for possession of more than 400 grams and the other charge for transportation of more than 400 grams. Defendant argues that because Defendant was not physically present when law enforcement stopped a travel companion who was in possession of the contraband, Defendant cannot be tried for the possession of or the transportation of the methamphetamine. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss.
In February 2020, Chris Gibson ("Gibson") was arrested and charged with possession of drugs, and, in exchange for leniency with his own case, Gibson agreed to assist police with their investigation of Defendant. Gibson and Defendant knew each other through drug transactions. At this time, Defendant had asked Gibson to travel with and assist him in transporting drugs from Georgia to North Carolina. Subsequently, the police developed a plan wherein Gibson would drive with Defendant to Georgia where they would pick up drugs to sell in North Carolina. As the pair re-entered this state, police would pull over their vehicle and arrest Defendant for drug trafficking.
Because Gibson did not own a car, police rented a red sedan for his and Defendant's use and hid a GPS tracking device on the vehicle. On 13 February 2020, Gibson informed police that he and Defendant were driving to Georgia, and police tracked the vehicle all the way to Atlanta. While in Atlanta, Defendant briefly dropped Gibson off at a Walmart before returning with a one-kilogram package of methamphetamine. Gibson updated police through text messaging the entire time. After securing the drugs, the two began their journey back to Defendant's residence in North Carolina.
However, as Gibson and Defendant approached the North Carolina border, the weariness of travel overtook them. Defendant suggested they park at a nearby gas station and summon help to assist them with the remainder of their journey. Gibson agreed, and the two stopped at a nearby gas station where Defendant called a female friend in North Carolina and requested that she and another friend drive to South Carolina to meet them and drive the vehicles back to North Carolina. The two women arrived in a white vehicle. Gibson remained in the red sedan but switched from the driver's seat to the passenger's seat, and Defendant got into the white vehicle. The women then drove the vehicles, in close proximity to each other, toward the North Carolina border.
Both vehicles were stopped separately after they crossed into North Carolina. Officer Perkins first stopped the white car and searched the Defendant and the car but did not find drugs. Deputy Tinoco then stopped the red sedan which was behind the white car by a few miles. The lead investigator estimated the distance between the two vehicles to be between three and five miles. The deputy searched the red sedan and found a large amount of methamphetamine in the trunk and the dash of the vehicle, along with three firearms. The officers arrested Defendant and the two women and pretended to arrest Gibson. Defendant was later indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts of trafficking in methamphetamine on 9 March 2020.
Defendant was tried before a jury in superior court at the 7 October 2021 session. At trial, Defendant's counsel moved to dismiss all charges at the close of the State's evidence and again at the close of all evidence. The trial court denied both motions. The jury found Defendant guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon, trafficking in methamphetamine by possessing 400 grams or more of methamphetamine, and trafficking in methamphetamine by transporting 400 grams or more of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced Defendant to 225 - 282 months for each of the two counts of trafficking in methamphetamine, to run consecutively, and 19 - 32 months for possession of a firearm by a felon to commence at the end of his sentences for the trafficking convictions. Defendant, through counsel, gave oral notice of appeal.
A trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo on appeal. State v. Crockett, 368 N.C. 717, 720, 782 S.E.2d 878, 881 (2016). "Under a de novo standard of review, this Court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the trial court." Reese v. Mecklenburg Cnty., 200 N.C.App. 491, 497, 685 S.E.2d 34, 38 (2009) (citations omitted).
When presented with a motion to dismiss, the trial court must determine if State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 98, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980). "Evidence is 'substantial' if a reasonable person would consider it sufficient to support the conclusion that the essential element exists." State v. McKinnon, 306 N.C. 288, 298, 293 S.E.2d 118, 125 (1982). "The evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the State; the State is entitled to every reasonable intendment and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom." Powell, 299 N.C. at 99, 261 S.E.2d at 117.
At the outset, we note that an individual may be charged with a crime in this state though a part of the crime was committed in another state so long as the person "has not been placed in jeopardy for the identical offense in another state." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-134 (2022). If any part of the offense occurred in North Carolina, this state has jurisdiction to try the offender. State v. First Resort Props., 81 N.C.App. 499, 501, 344 S.E.2d 354, 356 (1986). However, such part of the offense must constitute at least one "of the essential acts forming the crime." State v. Vines, 317 N.C. 242, 251, 345 S.E.2d 169, 174 (1986). Thus, the fact that most of Defendant's drug trafficking activities occurred in other states is not dispositive when he was not charged with an identical crime in Georgia or South Carolina. We must now determine whether Defendant's actions in this state were sufficient to constitute any part of the "essential acts forming the crime" alleged when, as the State concedes, Defendant did not physically possess the drugs at issue as he crossed the border into North Carolina.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the charges of trafficking in methamphetamine because the State failed to present any evidence that Defendant possessed or transported methamphetamine within North Carolina. Defendant contends that while he may have possessed and transported the drugs in Georgia and South Carolina, he never actually or constructively possessed or transported the drugs as he entered North Carolina. Therefore, he contends he could not be charged in this state with trafficking in methamphetamine by possession or transportation, and the State could not have presented substantial evidence of the necessary elements of trafficking by possession or transportation.
A person may be charged with trafficking in methamphetamine when that person "sells, manufactures, delivers, transports, or possesses 28 grams or more of methamphetamine or any mixture containing such substance." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(h)(3b) (2022). Here, the State charged Defendant with two separate counts of trafficking methamphetamine by possession and trafficking methamphetamine by transportation. We therefore look to each charge in turn.
To proceed upon the possession charge, the State must present substantial evidence that Defendant "(1) knowingly possessed . . . methamphetamine, and (2) that the amount possessed was greater than 28 grams." State v. Shelman, 159 N.C.App. 300, 305, 584 S.E.2d 88, 93 (2003). "The 'knowing possession' element of the offense of trafficking by possession may be established by a showing that (1) the defendant had actual possession, (2) the defendant had constructive possession, or (3) the defendant acted in concert with another to commit the crime." State v. Reid, 151 N.C. App. 420, 428, 566 S.E.2d 186, 192 (2002); see State v. Ambriz, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 880 S.E.2d 449, 458 (2022) (). The State concedes that Defendant did not have actual possession of the drugs when he entered this state but argues that he nevertheless had constructive possession through Gibson as his agent. For reasons unknown, the State did not brief this Court on the third relevant theory of acting in concert.[1]
Addressing the acting in concert theory, a defendant is said to have acted in concert with another if he acted "together, in harmony or in conjunction . . . with another pursuant to a common plan or purpose." State v. Joyner, 297 N.C. 349, 356, 255 S.E.2d 390, 395 (1979). "The principle of concerted action need not be overlaid with technicalities." Id.
[I]f "two persons join in a purpose to commit a crime, each of them, if actually or constructively present, is not only guilty as a principal if the other commits that particular...
To continue reading
Request your trial