State v. Newton
| Decision Date | 01 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 7427SC95,7427SC95 |
| Citation | 21 N.C.App. 384,204 S.E.2d 724 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Judy Barrett NEWTON. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Atty. Gen., Robert Morgan by Asst. Atty. Gen., Rafford E. Jones, Raleigh, for the State.
Daniel J. Walton, Gastonia, for defendant.
Defendant argues that she was entitled to a nonsuit because there was a fatal variance between the charge and the proof. The bill of indictment charged defendant with possession of 'Desoxyn.' The evidence tended to establish that she possessed methamphetamine. Because there was no evidence offered at trial to establish that 'Desoxyn' contained methamphetamine, defendant argues that the State failed to prove the charge contained in the bill of indictment.
The trial judge instructed the jury that Desoxyn and methamphetamine were the same thing. Defendant assigns this instruction as error on the ground that there is no evidence offered at trial to support the instruction.
Chapter 919 of the 1971 Session Laws, codified as G.S. § 90--91, classed methamphetamine as a controlled substance. Desoxyn does not appear by name as a controlled substance under the North Carolina Controlled Substances Act. However, our courts are not required to be ignorant of a fact which is generally and reliably established merely because evidence of the fact is not offered. The Courts will take judicial notice of subjects and facts of general knowledge, and also of facts in the field of any particular science which are capable of demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy, and judges may inform themselves as to such facts by reference to standard works on the subject. 3 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Evidence, § 3, p. 596. Each of the Schedules of the Controlled Substances Act provides that it 'includes the controlled substance listed or to be listed by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or trade name designated.' We take notice that Desoxyn is a trade name used by Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, Illinois, for methamphetamine hydrochloride. In a like manner, it was proper for the trial judge to take such notice and to instruct the jury that Desoxyn and methamphetamine are the same thing. Because Desoxyn and methamphetamine are the same thing, there was no variance between the charge in the bill of indictment and the proof. It was made clear by the defendant's own testimony that she knew the tablets were drugs. These assignments of error are overruled.
Defendant assigns as error the entry of the judgment in this case and moves in arrest thereof on the grounds that methamphetamine was listed under Schedule III of the Controlled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Odom
...to standard works on the subject.’ ” In re Harry C., 280 S.C. 308, 309–10, 313 S.E.2d 287, 288 (1984) (quoting State v. Newton, 21 N.C.App. 384, 204 S.E.2d 724, 725 (1974) ). But the State overlooks the mandatory nature of a judicially noticed fact under our version of Rule 201 juxtaposed t......
-
State v. Stith
...substance was not the name used in the statute nor was there evidence that the name was the trade name); State v. Newton, 21 N.C.App. 384, 386, 204 S.E.2d 724, 725 (1974) (holding that indictment was sufficient where the controlled substance was identified by its trade name rather than by t......
-
State Of North Carolina v. Lepage, COA09-842.
...of the charge against him with enough certainty to allow him to prepare his defense[.]” The State relies on State v. Newton, 21 N.C.App. 384, 204 S.E.2d 724 (1974). In Newton, our Court held that an indictment was sufficient even though it charged a defendant with possession of “Desoxyn[,]”......
-
Masters v. Rodgers Development Group
...1 Moss v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., supra; In the Matter of Harry C., 280 S.C. 308, 313 S.E.2d 287 (1984) ( citing State v. Newton, 21 N.C.App. 384, 204 S.E.2d 724 (1974)). Judicial notice takes the place of proof. Moss v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., supra. For this reason, judicial notice fo......