State v. Crotts

• Docket Number: COA22-697
• Decision Date: 06 June 2023
• Citation: State v. Crotts, COA22-697 (N.C. App. Jun 06, 2023)
• Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. AMY JO CROTTS
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

1

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. AMY JO CROTTS

No. COA22-697

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

June 6, 2023

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 March 2023.

Appeal by Defendant from judgments entered 8 December 2021 by Judge Athena Fox Brooks in Cleveland County Superior Court Nos. 20 CRS 52547; 21 CRS 466.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Milind K.Dongre, for the State.

Blass Law, PLLC, by Danielle Blass, for Defendant.

WOOD Judge.

Defendant appeals from convictions of felony possession of a schedule II-controlled substance, felony possession of cocaine, and delivery of cocaine. After careful review of the record, we conclude that Defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

I. Background

On 28 June 2020, Officer Price of the Kings Mountain Police Department was surveilling the parking lot near a shopping center in Kings Mountain after receiving several complaints about potential drug activity in the area. Officer Price, a K-9 handler, had been an officer for over five years and had made several drug arrests.

Around 9:50 p.m., Officer Price observed a burgundy Ford Taurus park in the parking lot near a laundromat. Immediately after, a dark-colored sedan also entered the parking lot and parked near the Taurus. The laundromat was the only business open at this time, and, though it was night, Officer Price would later recall that nearby streetlights aided his visibility of the two vehicles.

Shortly after the two vehicles parked, Officer Price observed Defendant exit the rear passenger door of the Taurus with a black purse in her hand. She then walked over to the dark sedan. When she arrived, Defendant leaned toward an open driver's window and exchanged something with the driver. Defendant then returned to the Taurus, placed the black purse into the trunk, and entered the back seat. Both vehicles drove away.

Officer Price followed the Taurus and activated his blue lights to conduct a stop. Once stopped, Officer Price observed four people in the Taurus. Defendant's adult daughter was the driver and owner of the vehicle. Defendant's son sat in the passenger seat, while Defendant's then girlfriend Ms. Ruff, sat in the rear, passenger side seat. Defendant sat in the rear, driver side seat.

Officer Price noticed that everyone in the vehicle appeared nervous. Officer Price called for backup and requested all occupants exit the vehicle. Once the vehicle was empty, Officer Price had his K-9 perform a drug sniff around the car. The K-9 alerted to the presence of narcotics. Officer Price, assisted by another officer, searched the vehicle and discovered a glass smoking pipe with white residue in it located near the driver seat. They also located another glass pipe and two syringes in a red bag that Defendant had previously held during the traffic stop. One of the syringes contained a clear substance. They also discovered three small bags, two containing a crystalline substance and the other containing a green, leafy substance, in a purse held by Ms. Ruff during the traffic stop. They next searched the trunk and found the black purse that Defendant had stored before leaving the parking lot. The purse contained a small bag of crystalline substance, another glass pipe, and Defendant's daughter's driver license. Officer Price arrested all occupants and transported them to the Cleveland County Detention Center.

At the jail, officers searched Ms. Ruff and Defendant. They discovered another bag containing a crystalline substance in Ms. Ruff's underwear. Defendant was subsequently indicted for possession of methamphetamine and possession and delivery of cocaine on 10 August 2020. On 26 March 2021, in a pretrial motion, Defendant moved to suppress all evidence, arguing that the Kings Mountain Police Department obtained the evidence in violation of Defendant's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court denied the motion on 18 May 2021.

At trial, which took place on 6 December 2021, Ms. Ruff testified as one of the State's witnesses against Defendant. She testified that Defendant purchased drugs for the both of them. They were both in a romantic relationship at the time of the relevant events of this appeal, but they ended their relationship shortly after being charged.

Ms. Alyssa Tinnin, a forensic chemist with the State Crime Lab, testified as the State's expert witness. She testified that she analyzed four suspected drug samples collected from the black purse and Ms. Ruff's underwear. She stated three of the four substances tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine.

At the end of the State's case, Defendant moved to dismiss all charges for insufficient evidence. The trial court denied the motion.

On 8 December 2021, the jury returned guilty verdicts as to the charges of possession of methamphetamine, possession of cocaine, and delivery of cocaine. The trial court sentenced Defendant to 8 to 19 months imprisonment for felony possession of a schedule II controlled substance, 8 to 19 months imprisonment for felony possession of cocaine, and 15 to 27 months imprisonment for delivery of cocaine. The trial court ordered the last two sentences to run consecutively to the first and suspended the sentence, placing Defendant on supervised probation for 36 months. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal in open court and appeals from these judgments pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b).

II. Discussion

Defendant alleges several prejudicial defects with the trial court's rulings. Defendant claims the trial court erred when it (1) failed to suppress evidence obtained in violation of Defendant's constitutional rights, (2) allowed a conviction to proceed in violation of Defendant's right against double jeopardy, (3) denied motions to dismiss charges for insufficient evidence, and (4) admitted evidence of an expert's testimony without proper foundation. We address each argument in turn.

A. Evidence Suppression

Defendant first challenges the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence collected as a result of Officer Price's traffic stop. Defendant alleges that this evidence was obtained in violation of her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and, therefore, should have been excluded at trial. Specifically, Defendant argues that Officer Price did not possess "reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop" and challenges the trial court's relevant findings of fact and conclusion of law holding otherwise.

Our ability to review an evidence suppression issue turns on whether a defendant properly moved to suppress the evidence at the trial level. State v. Miller, 371 N.C. 266, 268-69, 814 S.E.2d 81, 83 (2018). Here, Defendant moved the trial court to suppress evidence pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974. Accordingly, Defendant has preserved this issue for our review.

"The standard of review in evaluating the denial of a motion to suppress is whether competent evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact and whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law." State v. Biber, 365 N.C. 162, 16768, 712 S.E.2d 874, 878 (2011) (citing State v. Brooks, 337 N.C. 132, 140-41, 446 S.E.2d 579, 585 (1994)). "[F]indings of fact 'are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting.'" State v. Brewington, 352 N.C. 489, 498, 532 S.E.2d 496, 501 (2000) (quoting State v. Eason, 336 N.C. 730, 745, 445 S.E.2d 917, 926 (1994)). "Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and are subject to full review." Biber, 365 N.C. at 168, 712 S.E.2d at 878 (citing State v. McCollum, 334 N.C. 208, 237, 433 S.E.2d 144, 160 (1993))." 'Under a de novo review, the court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment' for that of the lower tribunal." Id. (quoting State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628, 632-33, 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008)). Generally, evidence must be excluded from the eyes of a jury if "obtained in violation of our constitution." State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709, 724, 370 S.E.2d 553, 562 (1988).

1. Findings of Fact

Defendant argues that the trial court's findings of fact 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 14, are not supported by competent evidence. We disagree.

Finding 4 reads, "K &M Auto Supply was in a well-lit area, illuminated by streetlights." Defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence tending to show that the area was "well-lit." At the hearing for the motion to suppress, Officer Price testified that it was night when he observed Defendant in the parking lot of K&M Auto Supply but that the parking lot offered "a pretty good level of lighting" due to "ambient light . . . from everywhere else." He noted "streetlights around the laundromat" and on a nearby street. He further testified that he "could see [the two vehicles] very well." From this, the trial court could appropriately find that the parking lot of K&M Auto Supply was "well-lit."

Finding 5 reads, "Simultaneously with the Ford Taurus pulling into the parking lot, another vehicle pulled into the same lot. Officer Price identified this vehicle as a dark-colored sedan." Officer Price testified that the dark-colored sedan entered the parking lot "immediately after the Ford Taurus pulled in." Defendant claims that the trial court could not have found two vehicles entered the parking lot "simultaneously" if the evidence showed that one vehicle entered the parking lot "immediately after" the other. The semantic conflict here is trivial and the...