State v. McCoy
| Decision Date | 17 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 9110SC584,9110SC584 |
| Citation | 105 N.C.App. 686,414 S.E.2d 392 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Johnny Mack McCOY, Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg by Asst. Atty. Gen. Julia F. Renfrow, Research Triangle Park, for the State.
John T. Hall, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.
In his first assignment of error, defendant contends the trial court erred when it allowed Turbeville to testify concerning how the small ziplock bags are commonly used to package cocaine for sale in small quantities and further that the minimum price of 38 grams of cocaine was $3,800. He argues this evidence was inadmissible hearsay not relevant to any issue in the case, and even if it was relevant, this evidence should have been excluded since its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. We disagree.
Otherwise inadmissible hearsay can be admitted as a basis for an expert opinion. State v. Jones, 322 N.C. 406, 368 S.E.2d 844 (1988). Although Turbeville was never formally qualified as an expert witness, the record reveals his opinions were based upon his many years of personal experience in the field of narcotics. Admission of this testimony amounted to a finding by the trial court that the witness had certain expertise concerning narcotics paraphernalia and the pricing of cocaine which was beyond the realm of that of the average juror. State v. Hart, 66 N.C.App. 702, 311 S.E.2d 630 (1984); State v. Covington, 22 N.C.App. 250, 206 S.E.2d 361 (1974). Officer Turbeville's years of training and experience placed him in a much better position than the jury to evaluate the significance of the ziplock bags found with the cocaine and the price of 38 grams of cocaine.
The opinion testimony of an expert witness is admissible if the expert is better qualified than the jury and therefore can assist the jury to glean certain inferences from the facts. State v. Bullard, 312 N.C. 129, 322 S.E.2d 370 (1984). Contrary to defendant's contentions, the testimony of Turbeville was relevant to the disposition of this proceeding. The offense of "trafficking" under G.S. 90-95(h) was enacted to help deter the flow of drugs into this state. State v. Willis, 61 N.C.App. 23, 300 S.E.2d 420, modified and affirmed, 309 N.C. 451, 306 S.E.2d 779 (1983). In creating this offense, our legislature has determined that certain amounts of controlled substances indicate an intent to distribute on a large scale. State v. Proctor, 58 N.C.App. 631, 294 S.E.2d 240, disc. review denied, 306 N.C. 749, 295 S.E.2d 484 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1172, 103 S.Ct. 818, 74 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1983). Evidence that these ziplock bags are frequently used in the illegal drug trade along with evidence of the value of the cocaine was both helpful and relevant in showing defendant intended to distribute the narcotics and was therefore engaged in trafficking in cocaine. Accordingly, Turbeville's testimony was properly admitted.
Defendant next contends the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to ask a leading question to Turbeville on direct examination. The exchange between the prosecutor and this witness was as follows:
Q Did the defendant ever suggest to you that he had found that brown paper bag?
....
A No. He vigorously said he knew nothing about the paper bag, had never seen it, it was not his.
A leading question is one that suggests the desired answer. State v. Britt, 291 N.C. 528, 231 S.E.2d 644 (1977). Normally, leading questions are not allowed on direct examination so as to prevent counsel from injecting the desired answer into the witness' mind. State v. Royal, 300 N.C. 515, 268 S.E.2d 517 (1980). However, rulings by the trial court on the use of leading questions are discretionary and reversible only for an abuse of discretion. Id. In several recognized circumstances, the trial court does not abuse its discretion when it permits counsel to lead a witness on direct examination. One such circumstance is where the leading question elicits testimony already received without objection into evidence. State v. Young, 312 N.C. 669, 325 S.E.2d 181 (1985). In the present case, the information elicited by the prosecutor's question had been previously received into evidence without objection. Accordingly, there has been no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court and this assignment of error is overruled.
In his next assignment of error defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied his motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence in the case. He argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on the trafficking charges. In determining if the evidence is sufficient to withstand defendant's motion to dismiss made at the close of all the evidence, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, allowing every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. State v. Irwin, 304 N.C. 93, 282 S.E.2d 439 (1981). Our review of the record discloses that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that defendant committed the offenses as charged. Therefore this assignment of error is overruled.
In his final...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carmon
...265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980)). Trafficking refers to large scale distribution of controlled substances. See State v. McCoy, 105 N.C.App. 686, 689, 414 S.E.2d 392, 394 (1992). The offense of trafficking by transportation includes any actual carrying about or movement of a particular quantity o......
-
State v. Jarman
...to the jury of a range of drug trafficking amounts differing from the range indicated in the indictment, see State v. McCoy, 105 N.C.App. 686, 414 S.E.2d 392 (1992); judgment mistakenly stating that prison term was imposed pursuant to plea agreement, see State v. Leonard, 87 N.C.App. 448, 3......
-
State v. Gilbert
...by the jury to enable the court to pass judgment on the verdict and sentence defendant appropriately. Id. Second, in State v. McCoy, 105 N.C.App. 686, 414 S.E.2d 392 (1992), this Court found no prejudicial error when the jury sheet called upon the jury to determine whether the defendant was......
-
State v. Robinson
...657, 535 S.E.2d 94, (2000) (rejecting the defendant's challenge when the verdict sheet misidentified the defendant); State v. McKoy,105 N.C.App. 686, 414 S.E.2d 392 (1992) (discarding as a mere clerical error the discrepancy between the indictment and verdict sheets about the maximum amount......
-
Leading questions
...1998); State v. Hydock, 725 A.2d 37 Conn. App. 1999; Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 634 N.E.2d 124 (Mass.App.Ct. 1994); State v. McCoy, 414 S.E.2d 392 (N.C.App. 1992); Hagood v. State, 588 So.2d 526 (Ala.App. 1991); People v. Hirschmann , 124 Ill.Dec. 779, 529 N.E.2d 760, 175 Ill.App.3d 150 (Ill......
-
Leading Questions
...1998); State v. Hydock, 725 A.2d 37 Conn.App. 1999; Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 634 N.E.2d 124 (Mass. App.Ct. 1994); State v. McCoy, 414 S.E.2d 392 (N.C.App. 1992); Hagood v. State, 588 So.2d 526 (Ala.App. 1991); People v. Hirschmann , 124 Ill.Dec. 779, 529 N.E.2d 760, 175 Ill.App.3d 150 (Ill......
-
Leading Questions
...1998); State v. Hydock, 725 A.2d 37 Conn.App. 1999; Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 634 N.E.2d 124 (Mass. App.Ct. 1994); State v. McCoy, 414 S.E.2d 392 (N.C.App. 1992); Hagood v. State, 588 So.2d 526 (Ala.App. 1991); People v. Hirschmann , 124 Ill.Dec. 779, 529 N.E.2d 760, 175 Ill.App.3d 150 (Ill......
-
Leading Questions
...1998); State v. Hydock, 725 A.2d 37 Conn.App. 1999; Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 634 N.E.2d 124 (Mass.App.Ct. 1994); State v. McCoy, 414 S.E.2d 392 (N.C.App. 1992); Hagood v. State, 588 So.2d 526 (Ala.App. 1991); People v. Hirschmann , 124 Ill.Dec. 779, 529 N.E.2d 760, 175 Ill.App.3d 150 (Ill.......