State v. Jones
718 S.E.2d 415
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Jones was convicted by a jury of six drug-related counts arising from events on 11–12 February 2009: possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana and sale of marijuana (11 Feb), possession of drug paraphernalia (11 Feb); and possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine (12 Feb).
- Evidence at trial included an NarTest machine test by Captain Lewis identifying marijuana and cocaine; Mr. Raney of NarTest did confirmatory testing and opined NarTest reliability; the State also relied on Sergeant Ides’ visual identifications of marijuana and cocaine.
- Jones challenged the NarTest testimony as unreliable and sought to exclude NarTest results; the court later vacated the NarTest results as plain error on the cocaine charge but upheld marijuana-related convictions.
- The court found the NarTest results for marijuana admissible only for identification due to other properly admitted evidence; however, NarTest-related lab results by Raney were inadmissible because Raney’s method lacked sufficient reliability and DHHS license evidence.
- At sentencing, the trial court was found to have considered Jones’s decision to go to trial and trial length, violating the right to a jury trial; restitution of $1,200 for NarTest analysis was vacated as unauthorized.
- The court vacated the $1,200 restitution, ordered a new trial on the cocaine charge, and remanded for resentencing on the related counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NarTest reliability and test-identity testimony | Jones argues NarTest testimony/results were improperly admitted | Jones contends NarTest lacks reliability and should be excluded | NarTest evidence admitted in error; cocaine charge new trial required |
| Visual identification of controlled substances | State relied on visual identification for marijuana | Ward requires chemical analysis, not visual ID | Visual marijuana identification permitted; cocaine visual ID improper but resolved by other evidence |
| Restitution for NarTest laboratory work | State seeks restitution for NarTest analysis | Statutory restitution limits not met | Vacate $1,200 restitution; not authorized |
| Sentencing based on jury trial decision | Sentence within range; no improper consideration | Court impermissibly considered defendant’s jury trial decision | Remand for resentencing due to improper consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Meadows, 201 N.C.App. 707 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010) (NarTest admissibility; new technology; reliability concerns)
- Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440 (N.C. 2004) (Three-step framework for expert testimony admissibility (reliability))
- Ward v. State, 364 N.C. 133 (N.C. 2010) (Expert testimony reliability; caution about infallibility of expert)
- State v. Peterson, 154 N.C.App. 515 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) (Sentencing affected by defendant’s decision to go to trial)