State v. Davis
| Decision Date | 19 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 7414SC1001,7414SC1001 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Jacquetta Anne DAVIS. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten by Asst. Atty. Gen. Alfred N. Salley, Raleigh, for the State.
Daniel K. Edwards, Durham, for defendant appellant.
Defendant assigns as error the denial of her motions for judgment as of nonsuit. When considered in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence tends to show the following:
At approximately 7:25 p.m. on 12 April 1974, Officer J. C. Fuller and other officers of the Durham Police Department, armed with a search warrant, went to an apartment located at 2805 Ashe Street in Durham. Defendant and her mother, Mable Davis Wright, lived in the apartment. When the officers arrived, the defendant, her mother, her two brothers, a cousin, and a male friend of the defendant's mother were present. Upon a search of the premises, Officer Fuller found a white envelope containing two needles and syringes and two bottle caps, referred to as 'cookers', outside the apartment about four feet from the kitchen door. The 'cookers' contained a small residue of heroin. In one of the bedrooms of the apartment, Officer Fuller also found a glassine envelope containing heroin hidden in the base of an artificial potted plant. Defendant told Officer Fuller that she occupied the bedroom in which he found the glassine envelope containing the heroin. Before defendant was taken to the police station, she put on a coat or 'some kind of garment', which she obtained from a closet in this same bedroom. While in the police car, defendant told Officer Fuller: 'You didn't find my stash of heroin.' Evidence was also introduced that the defendant was a heroin addict and that during April of 1974 she was taking methadone under the supervision of the North Carolina Department of Mental Health.
The defendant's mother, who was also charged with possession of heroin and who was found not guilty, testified that she and her daughter, the defendant, ordinarily occupied the apartment and that the defendant ordinarily occupied the bedroom where the heroin was discovered. However, on some occasions, when her two sons, ages eight and fourteen, came to spend the night with her, they occupied her daughter's bedroom. The apartment contained two bedrooms, a living room, and a kitchen.
Constructive possession of contraband material exists when there is no actual personal dominion over the material but when there is an intent and capability to maintain control and dominion over it. State v. Crouch, 15 N.C.App. 172, 189 S.E.2d 763 (1972). An accused has possession of contraband material within the meaning of the law when he has both the power and the intent to control its disposition or use. State v. Summers, 15 N.C.App. 282, 189 S.E.2d 807 (1972). Applying these principles to the evidence adduced at defendant's trial, we are of the opinion the evidence is sufficient to raise an inference that the defendant possessed the heroin found in the pot containing the artificial plant located in the bedroom ordinarily occupied by the defendant. This assignment of error is not sustained.
Defendant contends the court erred in allowing Officer Fuller to testify to a conversation he had with the defendant wherein she stated that the bedroom where the heroin was found in the glassine bag was hers. Defendant argues that this statement was obtained as a result of a custodial interrogation and was not competent in the absence of a showing by the State and a finding by the court that she had understandingly and voluntarily waived her rights against self-incrimination. We do not agree.
Before any statements attributed to defendant were admitted into evidence, the trial court, following the approved procedure, conducted a voir dire hearing in the absence of the jury regarding the conversation between the defendant and the officer to determine whether any of the statements made by the defendant were admissible. After the hearing, in which only the State offered any evidence, the trial court found and concluded 'that the statements made on the scene by each defendant was lawful and competent and voluntarily made and competent to be received in evidence'. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harrington
...within the meaning of the law when he has both the power and the intent to control its disposition or use." State v. Davis, 25 N.C.App. 181, 183, 212 S.E.2d 516, 517 (1975). When narcotics "are found on the premises under the control of an accused, this fact, in and of itself, gives rise to......
-
State v. McDonough
...(1949); State v. Raine, 93 Idaho 862, 864, 477 P.2d 104 (1970); Burris v. State, 465 N.E.2d 171, 186 (Ind.1984); State v. Davis, 25 N.C.App. 181, 185, 212 S.E.2d 516 (1975); State v. Barry, 34 A.2d 661, 663 (N.H.1943); 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Evidence (14th Ed.) § 15, p. 37. Where the prosec......
-
State v. Alston
...absence of special request by the defendant the trial judge is not required to instruct on circumstantial evidence. State v. Davis, 25 N.C.App. 181, 212 S.E.2d 516 (1975). The record in this case does not show that any such request was tendered by the In any event, it has been held that no ......
-
State v. Owen, 8029SC1012
...dominion over the material but when there is an intent and capability to maintain control and dominion over it. State v. Davis, 25 N.C.App. 181, 212 S.E.2d 516 (1975). The defendant moved to dismiss upon the close of the State's evidence. G.S. 15A-1227. The trial court erred in denying the ......