State v. Nabors
365 N.C. 306
| N.C. | 2011Background
- Nabors was arrested after an undercover cocaine purchase at a Dunn, North Carolina, gas station and indicted on possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine, sale of cocaine, and habitual felon status.
- Gendreau, the undercover buyer, had prior cocaine experience and identified the substance Nabors supplied as crack cocaine; Byrd of the narcotics unit testified the substance tested as crack cocaine.
- Smith testified for Nabors, claiming he, not Nabors, arranged and executed the drug sale and that Nabors did not possess cocaine; a handwritten statement by Smith recanted his prior statements and implicated Nabors.
- The trial court admitted Smith’s statement and Byrd’s lay testimony identifying the substance as crack cocaine; the State published Smith’s statement at trial.
- The Court of Appeals vacated Nabors’ convictions, holding there was insufficient evidence the substance was cocaine without a scientific chemical analysis, and reversed the trial court’s denial of Nabors’ motion to dismiss.
- The North Carolina Supreme Court granted discretionary review to evaluate (i) plain-error in admitting lay testimony about the substance and (ii) the standard for sufficiency of evidence to sustain a motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove a controlled substance | Nabors | Nabors | Evidence sufficient to prove cocaine; motion to dismiss denied |
| Plain-error review for lay testimony identifying the substance | State argued error but plain error not proven | Nabors | No plain error; own evidence showed cocaine |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. State, 364 N.C. 133 (2010) (defines sufficiency and expert necessity for substance identity)
- Llamas-Hernandez v. State, 189 N.C. App. 640 (2008) (discusses admissibility of laboratory reports and identity of controlled substances)
- Garcia v. State, 358 N.C. 382 (2004) (defines substantial evidence and reasonable-doubt standards for sufficiency)
- Jones v. State, 280 N.C. 60 (1971) (affirmation that defense evidence can be used to explain or clarify state evidence in motions to dismiss)
- State v. Denny, 361 N.C. 662 (2007) (instruction on considering evidence when ruling on motions to dismiss)