State v. Eddings

• Decision Date: 02 November 2021
• Docket Number: No. COA20-758,COA20-758
• Citation: 866 S.E.2d 499
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina, v. Dominique Jawann EDDINGS, Defendant.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

866 S.E.2d 499

STATE of North Carolina,

v.Dominique Jawann EDDINGS, Defendant.

No. COA20-758

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 2, 2021

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Jonathan R. Marx, for the State.

W. Michael Spivey, for Defendant-Appellant.

WOOD, Judge.

¶ 1 Defendant Dominique Jawann Eddings ("Defendant") appeals convictions of possession with intent to sell or deliver fentanyl, possession of fentanyl, possession of a firearm by a felon, and intentionally keeping or maintaining a building for keeping or selling a controlled substance. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his residence. The trial court denied the motion, finding probable cause. On appeal, Defendant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress; the denial of his motion to dismiss the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon; jury instructions given regarding the distinction between actual and constructive possession; and an alleged sentencing error. After careful review, we reverse the order denying Defendant's motion to suppress and grant Defendant a new trial.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 In 2018, the Buncombe County Sherriff's Office believed Robert Jones ("Jones") was selling narcotics in Leicester, North Carolina. Law enforcement had a confidential informant make a controlled purchase of narcotics from Jones at Jones's residence.

¶ 3 When the confidential informant successfully purchased fentanyl from Jones, law enforcement asked the informant to complete a second controlled purchase. Jones told the informant that "[h]e didn't have narcotics. He would have to go get narcotics." Law enforcement began surveilling Jones and observed Jones travel to a residence located at 92 Gillespie Drive. Jones remained at 92 Gillespie Drive for less than thirty minutes before meeting the informant at a nearby convenience store and providing narcotics to the informant. After observing this, law enforcement formed an opinion that Jones was procuring narcotics from 92 Gillespie Drive.

¶ 4 On April 19, 2018, Buncombe law enforcement officers arranged for the informant to purchase drugs from Jones for a third time. Prior to the scheduled controlled purchase, a surveillance team followed Jones¹ as he traveled to 92 Gillespie Drive. Jones remained at the residence for approximately ten minutes. Approximately two minutes after Jones left the residence, law enforcement attempted to perform a traffic stop. However, Jones did not stop his vehicle when law enforcement officers activated their emergency lights. While pursuing Jones, law enforcement officers "could see him eating something." Officers "finally got him stopped at [a] gas station" and noticed "that there was something in his beard that looked like white powder." It was determined later that Jones ingested narcotics.

¶ 5 Once law enforcement detained Jones, Detective Jason Sales ("Detective Sales") of the Buncombe County Sherriff's Office "wrote a search warrant" for the residence Jones had recently left. At the time, law enforcement did not know who resided at 92 Gillespie Drive, but Detective Sales "believe[ed] that [the house] [was] where [ ] Jones purchased his narcotics from, that this was, in fact, his source of supply." "[A] search warrant was drafted, approved by a supervisor, [and] taken to a magistrate."²

¶ 6 The search warrant application was comprised of six pages, and included: a broad description of items to be seized, including "any and all weapons," "any and all items of personal property," and any item that "could show information related to the manufacture, sale or distribution of controlled substances"; a list of three statutes law enforcement believed were violated; a description of the residence and directions from the Buncombe County Sheriff's Office to 92 Gillespie Drive; and an one-and-a-half page affidavit prepared by Detective Sales. The search warrant affidavit provided, in relevant parts,

While surveilling Jones, BCAT Agents were also able to follow him to 92 Gillespie Drive ..., also believed to be the Source of Supply for Jones. On this date ... BCAT Agents were able to once again surveille Jones and follow him to the 92 Gillespie Drive address. With the help of the Buncombe County Sheriff's Community Enforcement Team (SCET), BCAT Agents were able to advise SCET when Jones would be leaving the residence of 92 Gillespie Drive and advised them the direction Jones would be traveling.... Jones was placed under arrest and a subsequent search for suspected heroin/fentanyl was conducted. In the search of the vehicle Deputies were able to locate [drugs].... Based on my training and experience, and the facts as set forth in this affidavit, I believe that in the residence of 92 Gillespie Drive, there exists evidence of a crime and contraband or fruits of that crime, to include the use and sale of illegal narcotics. With the information of the officers and confidential sources involved in this case, the affiant respectfully requests of the court that a search warrant be issued.

The search warrant was executed that same day.

¶ 7 At the time the search warrant was executed, several individuals — including Defendant's cousin, Defendant's fiancé, an infant, and a teenaged girl — appeared to be either living at or visiting the residence. The search revealed digital scales, fentanyl, inositol powder, and a safe containing money and documents belonging to Defendant. Officers recovered a handgun with a holster and magazine from Defendant's bedroom. Officers further recovered magazines and ammunition from various places inside the residence. The following day, Detective Sales obtained a second search warrant for the residence. During the second search, officers found a coffee can in the backyard containing packages of fentanyl.

¶ 8 Subsequently, on January 7, 2019, Defendant was indicted for possession with the intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance, possession of fentanyl, possession of a firearm by a felon, and intentionally keeping or maintaining a dwelling for keeping or selling a controlled substance. On September 16, 2019, Defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained during the searches of 92 Gillespie Drive, arguing the issuing magistrate "erred in finding probable cause to issue the search warrant to search Defendant's residence located at 92 Gillespie Drive." Defendant argued that the search warrant lacked sufficient probable cause and violated Defendant's rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendant's motion was denied. In its order denying Defendant's motion to suppress, the trial court made findings of fact which Defendant challenges. The relevant findings of fact are as follows:

2. The affidavit attached to the warrant is signed by Detective Jason B. Sales. In the affidavit he among other things asserts ... [t]hat the task force with the aid of a confidential source of information recently purchased heroin/fentanyl from ... Jones; [t]hat agents with task force were able to conduct surveillance of Mr. Jones on several occasions ...; [t]hat during the surveillance they were also able to follow Mr. Jones to 92 Gillespie Drive, Leicester, NC, and based on their observations it was concluded that the source of supply of narcotics to Mr. Jones was coming from the property located at 92 Gillespie Drive ...; [t]hat on April 19, 2018 the day of the application for the search warrant agents were again conducting surveillance on Mr. Jones and he again went to the property located at 92 Gillespie Drive; [t]hat immediately upon Mr. Jones leaving this property law enforcement followed Mr. Jones and based on other probable cause they quickly pulled Mr. Jones over and stopped him; [u]pon stopping Mr. Jones it was noted that he was ingesting a white powdery substance; ... and [t]hat based on the training and experience of the detective he opined that there existed at the residence at 92 Gillespie Drive from which Mr. Jones had just left evidence of crime indicating the use and sale of illegal narcotics. This Court finds, as the magistrate did, the foregoing facts based on the affidavit attached to the search warrant.

5. ... The affidavit supports a drug dealer frequenting the particular residence to be searched, and that the drug dealer was found with a substantial amount of drugs immediately upon leaving that residence.... The affidavit attached to the search warrant is sufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of the warrant.

6. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the magistrate in this case had a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed to search ... [D]efendant's home at 92 Gillespie Drive ....

¶ 9 Defendant's trial began on September 17, 2019, in the Buncombe County Superior Court. On September 20, 2019, a jury convicted Defendant on all counts: possession with intent to sell or deliver fentanyl, possession of fentanyl, possession of a firearm by a felon, and intentionally keeping or maintaining a dwelling for keeping or selling a controlled substance. Judgments were entered upon the jury's verdicts. Defendant timely gave notice of appeal in open court.

¶ 10 On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and his motion to dismiss the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon. Defendant further contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on constructive possession of a firearm and in sentencing Defendant as a Class I felon.

II. Discussion

¶ 11 Defendant first contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained through the search warrant, as the search warrant affidavit lacked probable cause for its issuance. After careful review, we agree and reverse the order denying Defendant's motion to suppress, as the application affidavit is fatally defective.

¶ 12 Our review of a trial court's denial of...