State v. Torres-Gonzalez, 227 N.C. App. 188

Defendant Jose Joel Torres-Gonzalez was tried from January 17–20, 2012 for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and trafficking by possession of cocaine.
Undercover Detective Mounce met with Blanco beginning in October 2010 to arrange a drug purchase and establish a source for larger quantities.
A deal for 15 ounces (about 425 grams) of cocaine was set for November 16, 2010 for $18,000.
Blanco arrived with Defendant in the passenger seat; they observed money and then left to obtain the cocaine.
Police tracked Blanco and Defendant, leading to surveillance and a sequence ending with Blanco delivering cocaine to Mounce and Defendant directing the exchange.
Police obtained a search warrant for Defendant’s address; execution yielded large sums of cash, drugs, scales, and a card bearing Defendant’s name; Defendant was arrested.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the search warrant supported by probable cause?	State contends probable cause existed.	Torres-Gonzalez argues lack of probable cause.	No error; magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause.
Is there substantial evidence to deny dismissal on both counts?	State asserts sufficient evidence of conspiracy and trafficking by possession.	Torres-Gonzalez argues insufficient evidence.	Yes; evidence supports conspiracy to traffic by possession and trafficking by possession.
Are the jury verdicts legally inconsistent or merely inconsistent?	Convictions for conspiracy to traffic by possession and acquittal on trafficking by possession could exist together.	Such verdicts are legally inconsistent due to possession element.	Merely inconsistent; not legally conflicting; no error.

State v. Campbell, 282 N.C. 125, 191 S.E.2d 752 (1972) (probable cause must detail underlying circumstances; not merely conclusory)
State v. Ledwell, 171 N.C. App. 328, 614 S.E.2d 412 (2005) (conspiracy requires agreement to commit every element; no overt act required)
State v. Suggs, 117 N.C. App. 654, 453 S.E.2d 211 (1995) (proof of conspiracy may be inferred; mutual understanding suffices)
State v. Jenkins, 167 N.C. App. 696, 606 S.E.2d 430 (2005) (conspiracy to traffic by possession requires agreement to possess and traffic; no possession element needed for conspiracy)
State v. Speckman, 326 N.C. 576, 391 S.E.2d 165 (1990) (mutually exclusive verdicts invalid when offenses are inherently exclusive)
State v. Mumford, 364 N.C. 394, 699 S.E.2d 911 (2010) (merely inconsistent verdicts permissible if elements are not mutually exclusive)
State v. Wiggins, 185 N.C. App. 376, 648 S.E.2d 865 (2007) (trafficking by possession requires knowing possession; may be proved by circumstantial evidence)
State v. Cutler, 271 N.C. 379, 156 S.E.2d 679 (1967) (test of sufficiency of evidence bridges circumstantial/direct)