State v. Bradshaw
366 N.C. 90
| N.C. | 2012Background
- Detectives investigated drug activity at 487 Pharr Drive in the Silver Hill area based on resident complaints.
- Warrant to search the residence was issued on June 19, 2007, without naming a specific occupant but authorized seizure of indicia of domain.
- Officers found drugs, firearms, cash, scales, and a lockbox inside the unoccupied home during a SWAT-entry search.
- The left front bedroom contained the cocaine (182.5 grams total) and a .22 rifle; the room also contained items linking to defendant.
- Personal papers in the room included Time Warner Cable installation and billing documents, a paystub, a Father’s Day card, a gift card, an envelope addressed to a defendant alias, and two photos of the defendant.
- Detective Tierney identified “BI” and “Mario” as aliases for the defendant; defendants’ presence at the residence was disputed, with other occupants having occupied the home previously.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence properly supports constructive possession | Bradshaw controlled the bedroom and contraband via nonexclusive possession | No other incriminating circumstances linking him to contraband | Yes; sufficient incriminating circumstances support constructive possession |
| Whether other incriminating circumstances linked Bradshaw to contraband given nonexclusive control | Personal papers and utilities in his name show linkage | Evidence insufficient to show dominion at time of search | Yes; sufficient linkage supported by multiple items and proximity |
| Whether denial of motion to dismiss was proper given the evidence | Evidence viewed in State’s favor supports guilt beyond suspicion | Evidence shows only suspicion, not dominion | Yes; denial of motion to dismiss proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Miller, 363 N.C. 96 (N.C. 2009) (standard for determining constructive possession; framework for evaluation of evidence)
- State v. McNeil, 359 N.C. 800 (N.C. 2005) (criteria for constructive possession with nonexclusive control)
- State v. Baxter, 285 N.C. 735 (N.C. 1974) (presence at residence not required; evidence of control can suffice)
- State v. Allen, 279 N.C. 406 (N.C. 1971) (constructive possession where defendant not present but linked by other factors)
- State v. Finney, 290 N.C. 755 (N.C. 1976) (insufficient linkage where no other incriminating circumstances)