State v. Chekanow, 370 N.C. 488

On Aug. 21, 2014, helicopter marijuana-eradication officers observed 22 marijuana plants on a fenced ½-acre portion of a 3-acre parcel owned and occupied by Linda Chekanow and Robert Bishop.
The fenced area had a single gate adjacent to defendants’ yard, contained a chicken coop/chickens and fruit trees, and showed signs of a beaten trail and recent maintenance; the plants were ~200 feet from the house.
No drugs were found inside the house or outbuildings, but gardening tools, pots, a small starter cup, and a shovel with red dirt matching the plants’ soil were recovered near an outbuilding.
Chekanow was the only person at home when officers arrived; she made an obscene gesture at the helicopter and attempted to leave in a vehicle but complied with officers.
Defendants admitted owning/occupying the property for ~9 years and that a third party with a key frequently accessed the property for maintenance; both were convicted after a jury trial.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding defendants’ possession was nonexclusive and the State failed to show other incriminating circumstances; the N.C. Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to take to the jury on constructive possession of growing marijuana plants	Evidence of ownership, proximity, fenced sole entry, recent maintenance by Bishop, beaten trail, chickens/coops in same fenced area, suspicious conduct by Chekanow, and gardening tools linking defendants to cultivation permit a reasonable inference of dominion and knowledge	Ownership alone insufficient because possession of the specific fenced area was nonexclusive (third-party access) and the State failed to show other incriminating circumstances	Reversed Court of Appeals: under totality of circumstances the State produced sufficient incriminating circumstances to let the jury decide constructive possession
Whether ownership/occupation by itself establishes constructive possession when access by others exists	State relied primarily on additional circumstances but also treated ownership as a strong factor	Defendants argued ownership plus nonexclusive access did not prove constructive possession without further nexus	Court majority: ownership is a weighty factor but not dispositive when possession is nonexclusive; additional incriminating circumstances were required and here were present. Justice Newby concurred in result only, arguing ownership/occupation alone would suffice to reach the jury

State v. Matias, 354 N.C. 549 (2001) (contraband on premises under accused’s control gives rise to an inference of possession, but nonexclusive possession requires other incriminating circumstances)
State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1 (1972) (marijuana found inside defendant’s home and defendant sole occupant supported inference of possession)
State v. Spencer, 281 N.C. 121 (1972) (constructed inference of control over remote outbuilding and field based on presence, seeds in bedroom, and path linking locations)
State v. Davis, 325 N.C. 693 (1989) (when possession is nonexclusive the State must show additional incriminating circumstances)
State v. Thorpe, 326 N.C. 451 (1990) (ownership is strong evidence of control but totality of circumstances required where others have access)
State v. Miller, 363 N.C. 96 (2009) (constructive possession requires intent and capability to maintain control; proximity and indicia of control are key factors)
State v. Butler, 356 N.C. 141 (2002) (defendant’s suspicious conduct can be an additional incriminating circumstance)
State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563 (1984) (items found on defendant linking to contraband—e.g., cash—can support constructive possession)