State v. Miranda, 235 N.C. App. 601

Background

On July 19–20, 2012, sheriff’s deputies searched Daniel Miranda’s mobile-home room with consent and found behind a mirror a pill bottle containing two plastic bags: one with ~21.5 g cocaine base and one with a rice–cocaine base mixture weighing 28.26 g. Two digital scales and boxes of plastic bags were also found in the room.
Miranda admitted during a recorded interview that he had mixed rice with cocaine base to remove moisture and put the mixture into the pill bottle; he initially denied sales but acknowledged, "it is what you said it is."
A grand jury indicted Miranda for (1) trafficking in 28–200 grams of cocaine by manufacturing, (2) trafficking in 28–200 grams by possession, and (3) maintaining a dwelling for sale; the maintaining-dwelling charge was dismissed at trial for insufficiency.
A jury convicted Miranda of trafficking in 28–200 grams of cocaine by manufacturing (based on a mixture exceeding 28 g) and felonious possession; he was sentenced to 35–51 months imprisonment.
Miranda appealed, raising: (A) indictment defects; (B) failure to submit lesser included offense (manufacturing); (C) failure to instruct intent-to-distribute for compounding-based manufacturing; and (D) insufficiency of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Miranda)	Held
1. Indictment sufficiency for trafficking by manufacturing	Indictment followed statutory language alleging manufacture of 28+ grams of a mixture containing cocaine; that suffices to confer jurisdiction.	Indictment fatally defective because it did not specify the particular manner of "manufacturing" (e.g., compounding vs packaging).	Affirmed: indictment valid; statutory wording charging manufacture is sufficient.
2. Failure to submit lesser included offense of manufacturing cocaine	No plain error: evidence established manufacturing of >28 g mixture; jury already could consider possession as lesser offense; no rational basis to acquit of trafficking but convict of simple manufacturing.	Trial court erred (plain error) by not instructing on manufacturing as lesser included offense.	No plain error: submission not required because evidence did not permit rational verdict convicting only of lesser offense.
3. Instruction on intent to distribute when manufacturing by compounding	Even if Childers requires proof of intent when manufacturing is compounding, jury was allowed to find manufacturing by packaging/repackaging too; undisputed facts (packaging items, pill bottle, admission) make any intent-to-distribute instruction unnecessary to change outcome.	Court should have instructed jury that compounding-based manufacturing requires proof of intent to distribute.	No plain error: any omission would not probably have changed verdict.
4. Sufficiency of the evidence for trafficking by manufacturing	Substantial evidence supported manufacturing: >28 g mixture found plus scales and plastic bags in same room and Miranda’s admission about mixing and placing the bag in the pill bottle.	Evidence insufficient to show packaging/repackaging or compounding with intent to distribute; scales/plastic bags could be for marijuana or other innocuous uses.	Affirmed: evidence sufficient to deny dismissal; packaging/repackaging evidence supports manufacturing-based trafficking conviction.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Sturdivant, 304 N.C. 293, 283 S.E.2d 719 (indictment is essential to subject-matter jurisdiction)
State v. Barneycastle, 61 N.C. App. 694, 301 S.E.2d 711 (charging instrument following statute is sufficient absent statutory ambiguity)
State v. Childers, 41 N.C. App. 729, 255 S.E.2d 654 (preparation/compounding as manufacturing may require proof of intent to distribute)
State v. Broome, 136 N.C. App. 82, 523 S.E.2d 448 (quantity of mixture may satisfy trafficking statute even if pure-drug weight is smaller)
State v. Outlaw, 96 N.C. App. 192, 385 S.E.2d 165 (finding instruments of manufacture with cocaine supports manufacturing conviction)
State v. Strickland, 307 N.C. 274, 298 S.E.2d 645 (standard for submitting lesser included offenses)
State v. Tyndall, 55 N.C. App. 57, 284 S.E.2d 575 (legislature’s weight thresholds infer intent to distribute for large amounts)