State v. Galaviz-Torres, 368 N.C. 44

Background

Police and DEA investigated Galaviz-Torres after a confidential informant arranged to buy ~2 kg of cocaine from him; officers arrested him at a Taco Bell parking lot and found three packages of cocaine in a gift bag next to the driver’s seat of the van.
After Miranda warnings, Galaviz-Torres admitted the seized substance was cocaine, said he bought it from another person, took officers to the source location, and admitted prior cocaine sales and expected payment for the delivery.
He testified at trial that he borrowed the van to deliver ladders, did not know the van contained the gift bag or cocaine, and denied prior admissions about transporting cocaine.
Indicted for trafficking (>=400g) by possession, trafficking (>=400g) by transportation, and possession with intent to sell/deliver; convicted by jury and sentenced to consecutive lengthy terms and large fines.
On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, holding the trial court erred by failing to include footnote 4 language to N.C.P.I. Crim. 260.17 and 260.30 (requiring the jury to be instructed that defendant knew the substance’s identity) when the defendant contested guilty knowledge.
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the pattern instructions given (without footnote 4 language) were adequate because defendant denied any knowledge of possessing the bag or its contents (not merely the identity of a known possession), and any error was not plain given the record evidence of actual knowledge.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Galaviz-Torres' Argument	Held
Whether trial court had to add footnote 4 language to N.C.P.I. Crim. 260.17/260.30 when defendant denied knowledge of possession	Footnote 4 unnecessary where defendant denied possession altogether; standard pattern instruction sufficed	Footnote 4 required because defendant contested guilty knowledge and claimed he did not know the van/gift bag contained cocaine	Held: No. Footnote 4 applies when defendant admits possession but contests the substance’s identity; here defendant denied possessing the container/substance, so the basic instruction was adequate
Whether failure to give footnote 4 instruction constituted plain error	Any omission harmless because record contained substantial evidence defendant knew he possessed/transported cocaine	Omission was plain error affecting guilt determination; required new trial (Court of Appeals)	Held: No plain error. Record contained admissions and corroborating evidence undermining claim of ignorance, so any error did not probably affect verdict

Key Cases Cited

State v. Weldon, 314 N.C. 401 (recognizes felonious possession requires knowing possession)
State v. Elliott, 232 N.C. 377 (prima facie showing creates presumption of guilty knowledge for crimes lacking specific intent)
State v. Boone, 310 N.C. 284 (actual knowledge of presence of narcotic is essential; jury may not be instructed that "reason to know" suffices)
State v. Nobles, 329 N.C. 239 (court must charge jury on lack of guilty knowledge when defendant introduces such evidence)
State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 (plain error requires showing probable impact on jury's verdict)
State v. Grice, 367 N.C. 753 (plain error reserved for exceptional cases; requires effect on fairness/integrity of proceedings)
State v. Oates, 366 N.C. 264 (overruled on other grounds; cited for scope of precedent)