State v. Moore
| Decision Date | 06 August 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. COA01-779.,COA01-779. |
| Citation | 152 NC App. 156,566 S.E.2d 713 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. William Earnest MOORE. |
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Mark J. Pletzke, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Lee & Lee, by Junius B. Lee, III, Whiteville, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant, William Earnest Moore, appeals convictions of two counts of knowingly maintaining a place to keep or sell a controlled substance, one count of trafficking in cocaine by possession, and one count of trafficking in cocaine by manufacturing. He sets forth five assignments of error. For the reasons herein, we find no error.
The State's evidence tends to show the following: Detective Matt Dennis of the Bladen County Sheriff's Department testified that on five separate occasions he and a man named Charles Haley went to defendant's residence. Dennis provided money to Haley and then observed from the rear view mirror of his vehicle as Haley went inside the residence and returned with an off-white crystalline substance. Haley would then inform Dennis that "Earnest" sold him the cocaine. Due to poor lighting conditions, Dennis was unable to discern whether the address written in black numbers on defendant's mobile home was "995" or "996." Dennis told this to his supervising officer, Detective Sergeant Kyle Jones, and also informed him that the residence was a single wide mobile home with brown trim and was the first of two mobile homes in the driveway.
Subsequently, Detective Tom Arnold took a confidential source of information (CSI) to defendant's mobile home. The CSI had earlier told Arnold that he was able to buy controlled substances at Camp Ground Road from a man named William Earnest Moore. Arnold gave the CSI money and observed him go into defendant's home and purchase what Arnold believed to be cocaine. Arnold told Jones the address number was 996 and the mobile home was white with brown trim. He also said it was the first of two mobile homes in the driveway.
Within forty-eight hours of the time Arnold and the CSI visited defendant's residence, a search warrant was issued. A map to defendant's home was attached to the search warrant, and the mobile home was described as being white with brown trim. Jones said he believed the address of the first trailer, where all of the drug activity took place, was 996 Camp Ground Road. He listed that address in the search warrant as the residence to be searched. The actual address of defendant's home is 995 Camp Ground Road.
Arnold, one of the officers involved in the search, testified he went to the same mobile home where he had observed the CSI purchase cocaine. Defendant's mobile home, at 995 Camp Ground Road, was the one searched, with a number of items, including cash and illegal drugs, seized. Additionally, an off-white substance and $1,168.90 were obtained from defendant's trousers. In all, $24,256.90 was seized from defendant's clothes, dresser drawers, and areas under the mobile home's carpeting. A loaded .38 special revolver was found in the bottom of the oven, while a nine millimeter pistol and a set of scales were found in a cabinet. While searching a shed behind defendant's residence, Arnold discovered a plastic container filled with an off-white rock-like substance, a rifle, and a set of scales.
Defendant made a motion to suppress the seized evidence. At the suppression hearing, the trial court found that, although the warrant listed the incorrect address, sufficient probable cause existed to issue it. The court further concluded there was no substantial violation under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A-974(2) requiring suppression of the evidence.
At trial, defendant was found guilty and sentenced to two consecutive forty-five day terms for the two offenses of knowingly maintaining a place to keep or sell a controlled substance plus two more consecutive thirty-five to forty-two month terms for the two trafficking offenses. He appeals.
By his first assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant. Defendant maintains the warrant failed to identify the persons or places to be searched with sufficient particularity in that his full name was not used, the address was listed as "996" and not "995," and defendant rented the mobile home from his brother, who is not listed in the warrant as the owner. We disagree.
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we examine the evidence introduced at trial in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether the facts are supported by competent evidence and whether those factual findings in turn support legally correct conclusions of law. State v. McKinnon, 306 N.C. 288, 298, 293 S.E.2d 118, 125 (1982); State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982).
A search warrant must contain a "designation sufficient to establish with reasonable certainty the premises, vehicles, or persons to be searched," and a "description or a designation of the items constituting the object of the search and authorized to be seized." N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 15A-246(4) and 15A-246(5) (2001). The executing officer's prior knowledge of the house to be searched is relevant. State v. Cloninger, 37 N.C.App. 22, 25, 245 S.E.2d 192, 195 (1978). Additionally, the address described in the search warrant may differ from the address of the residence actually searched. State v. Walsh, 19 N.C.App. 420, 423, 199 S.E.2d 38, 40-41,disc. review denied, 284 N.C. 258, 200 S.E.2d 658 (1973). A search warrant is not defective for failure to specifically name a defendant. State v. Hansen, 27 N.C.App. 459, 464-65, 219 S.E.2d 641, 644 (1975),cert. denied,289 N.C. 453, 223 S.E.2d 161 (1976). Nor is it defective for erroneously listing the defendant as the actual owner of the residence. See State v. Woods, 26 N.C.App. 584, 587, 216 S.E.2d 492, 494,
(error naming son rather than father as the owner of the premises does not render the description fatally defective), appeal dismissed, 288 N.C. 396, 218 S.E.2d 469 (1975).
Here, the warrant describes defendant as a black male named "Ernest." It states that Ernest resides in a single wide mobile home with brown trim and that the number "996" is affixed to the right of the front door. A map to defendant's residence is attached to the warrant. Further, Arnold had previously been to defendant's residence and observed defendant there. The facts are therefore supported by competent evidence with the findings supporting legally correct conclusions of law. Defendant's contention that the evidence seized pursuant to this search warrant must be suppressed is without merit.
By his second assignment of error, defendant contends that, because of the State's failure to disclose lab reports of the off-white rock-like substance prior to trial, the trial court erred when it refused to suppress the lab reports and the testimony of two State Bureau of Investigation lab agents, or to dismiss the charges. Defendant maintains that the trial court abused its discretion in only allowing defendant the option of moving for a mistrial or having a continuance to review the lab reports. We disagree.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Steele
...a motion to suppress, we examine the evidence introduced at trial in the light most favorable to the State[.]" State v. Moore , 152 N.C. App. 156, 159, 566 S.E.2d 713, 715 (2002) (citations omitted).A. The Trial Court's Findings ¶ 59 At the heart of Defendant's arguments both before the tri......
-
State Carolina v. Hunter, COA10–483.
...or a designation of the items constituting the object of the search and authorized to be seized.’ ” State v. Moore, 152 N.C.App. 156, 159, 566 S.E.2d 713, 715 (2002) (quoting N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 15A–246(4) and 15A–246(5) (2001)); see also State v. Walsh, 19 N.C.App. 420, 423, 199 S.E.2d 38, 4......
-
State v. Duncan
...a motion to suppress, we examine the evidence introduced at trial in the light most favorable to the State[.]" State v. Moore , 152 N.C. App. 156, 159, 566 S.E.2d 713, 715 (2002) (citations omitted).Trial Court's Ruling and Scope of Review Here, the trial court denied Defendant's Motion to ......
-
Cameron v. Merisel Properties, Inc.
...is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." State v. Moore, 152 N.C.App. 156, 161, 566 S.E.2d 713, 716 (2002) (citing State v. Hodge, 118 N.C.App. 655, 657, 456 S.E.2d 855, 856 (1995)). An abuse of discretion exists only when a ......