State v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 19 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 7318SC764,7318SC764 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. James Castle THOMAS. |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan by Asst. Atty. Gen. Parks H. Icenhour, Raleigh, for the State.
Frye, Johnson & Barbee by Walter T. Johnson, Jr., Greensboro, for defendant appellant.
Appellant contends he was entitled to nonsuit on the grounds that the State's evidence disclosed that he possessed at most only a tiny amount of the substance heroin and that possession of such a small quantity should not be considered an offense under G.S. § 90--95(a)(3). That statute, however, makes it unlawful for any person to possess 'a controlled substance included in any schedule' of the North Carolina Controlled Substances Act without regard to the amount involved. It may be, as defendant contends, that possession of a mere trace of a controlled substance is not in itself one of the evils sought to be suppressed by the Controlled Substances Act. Nevertheless, to interpret the statute as defendant here contends would require that we amend it, a legislative rather than a judicial function. We find no error in denial of defendant's motion for nonsuit.
What we have said above also disposes of appellant's assignments of error directed to the trial court's actions in sustaining the solicitor's objection when defendant's counsel sought to question the SBI chemist as to '(w)hat is a usable quantity of heroin' and in refusing to instruct the jury that they must find defendant not guilty if they found he 'merely possessed useless traces or residue of narcotics.' The North Carolina Controlled Substances Act as now written simply does not limit its strictures to possession of 'usable' or any other specific quantities of the forbidden substances.
During cross-examination of the defendant the solicitor asked, without objection, if he did not have 'track marks' on his arms. This the defendant denied. At the solicitor's request and over defendant's objection, the court then required defendant to take off his jacket and exhibit his arms to the jury. In this we find no error. The presence of such marks on defendant's arms was relevant to show his knowledge of an familiarity with the type of drug which he was charged with possessing in this case. Possession of a bottle cap containing a residue as described in the evidence in this case by a person unfamiliar with the uses of heroin might well be consistent with innocent possession because of lack of knowledge by the possessor of the contraband nature of the article p...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. US, 91-CF-113
...160, 509 P.2d 554, 555 (1973) (citation omitted); State v. Grijalva, 85 N.M. 127, 509 P.2d 894, 897 (Ct.App.1973); State v. Thomas, 20 N.C.App. 255, 201 S.E.2d 201, 202 (1973), cert. denied, 284 N.C. 622, 202 S.E.2d 277 (1974); State v. Allesi, 216 N.W.2d 805, 809 (N.D.1974); Doyle v. State......
-
Thomas v. US
...85 N.M. 127, 509 P.2d 894 (Ct.App.1973); People v. Mizell, 72 N.Y.2d 651, 536 N.Y.S.2d 21, 532 N.E.2d 1249 (1988); State v. Thomas, 20 N.C.App. 255, 201 S.E.2d 201 (1973), cert. denied, 284 N.C. 622, 202 S.E.2d 277 (1974); State v. Daniels, 26 Ohio App.3d 101, 498 N.E.2d 227 (1985); Spriggs......
-
State v. Lowe
...controlled substance [.]" State v. Williams, 149 N.C.App. 795, 798–99, 561 S.E.2d 925, 927 (2002) ; see also State v. Thomas, 20 N.C.App. 255, 257, 201 S.E.2d 201, 202 (1973). Possession of controlled substances in violation of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 90–95 (2013) was identified by Det. Barber in ......
-
State v. Robinson, 1726
...465 (1965); Partain v. State, 139 Ga.App. 325, 228 S.E.2d 292 (1976), aff'd, 238 Ga. 207, 232 S.E.2d 46 (1977); State v. Thomas, 20 N.C.App. 255, 201 S.E.2d 201 (1973), cert. denied, 284 N.C. 622, 202 S.E.2d 277 (1974). While our Supreme Court has never considered the precise question prese......