898 S.E.2d 792
N.C. Ct. App.2024Background
- Mark Alan Miller was convicted by a Henderson County jury for trafficking in methamphetamine and trafficking in opium by possession, based on possession of hydrocodone pills found during a police search of his home.
- Miller was charged under the 2017 version of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(h)(4), which criminalizes possession of four grams or more of opium, opiate, or certain derivatives.
- Hydrocodone, a synthetic opioid, was confirmed as the substance found by a forensic scientist during trial.
- Miller moved to dismiss the opium trafficking charge, arguing that the statute, as amended in 2017, does not include opioids like hydrocodone; the trial court denied the motion.
- The jury was instructed that "opium or opiate" under the statute encompassed opioids, over Miller’s objection.
- Miller appealed, contesting the denial of his motion to dismiss, the jury instruction, and the alleged consideration of improper sentencing factors.
Issues
| Issue | Miller's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to dismiss opium trafficking charge | Hydrocodone is an opioid, and 2017 statute differentiates "opioid" from "opiate"—no violation | Statute interpreted in prior case (Garrett) includes opioids in "opium or opiate" | Motion properly denied; precedent binding |
| Jury instruction re: “opium or opiate” includes opioids | Instruction was erroneous since statute's plain meaning excludes opioids | Jury was properly instructed per court's precedent | No error; instruction proper under law |
| Consideration of improper sentencing factors (plea rejection, other drug activity) | Sentencing violated due process rights | No evidence trial court improperly considered plea or alleged activity | No evidence of improper considerations; sentencing valid |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71 (standard for substantial evidence on motions to dismiss)
- State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373 (threshold for denial of motion to dismiss criminal charges)
- State v. Boone, 293 N.C. 702 (presumption of regularity for sentences within statutory limits)
- State v. Johnson, 320 N.C. 746 (standards for review of potential improper sentencing factors)
- In re Clayton-Marcus Co., 286 N.C. 215 (statutory definitions override ordinary meanings)
- State v. Camp, 286 N.C. 148 (plain meaning rule on statutory interpretation)