Dеfendants raise a single question on appeal — whether there was sufficient evidence to submit an issue of guilt or innocence to the jury.
The evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, tended to show:
Defendants tоgether with another male had rented an apartment in Greenville — Apartment 103-H, Eastbrook Apartments— on 264 Bypass, but about a block from the highway. On 9 May 1973 officers went to the apartment and, pursuant to a search warrant (the validity оf which is not at issue), searched the premises. They found over nine pounds of marijuana, six growing marijuana plants, marijuana seeds, and an envelope containing $3400. Marijuana was found in two bedrooms and seven marijuana plants were found in a third bedroom. Marijuana seed were found in the kitchen. Marijuana seed were also found in the top drawer of a bedroom in which marijuana was also found. In the same bedroom was found a white envelope cоntaining $3400. The money was turned over to I.R.S. Only one of the lessees was at the apartment, one Strange, who said that the second bedroom on the left was his, this being where the money, some of the marijuana, and marijuana seed werе found. All three bedrooms appeared to have been occupied. An East Carolina University I.D. card beаring the photograph of defendant Lucas was found in the drawer of a dresser in the first bedroom on the left. A Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Company bill addressed to Terry Cockman, 103 Eastbrook Drive Apartments, Apt. H, Greenville, N. C., was found on a table in the living room. Neither defendant was at the apartment when the officers went there, and neither came while the officers were there.
The lease for the apartment was introduced into evidence. It shows that the apartment rented for $192 per month. The lease was signed by Terry Cockman, Louis H. Lucas and Brucе *411 Strange and began 25 March 1973. The rental record shows that rent was paid for the balance of March, for April, for May, and that a portion of that paid for June was refunded. The applications for the apartment disclose that Bruce L. Strange was from Annapolis, Maryland; that Louis H. Lucas was from Hyattsville, Maryland; and that Terry Cockman was frоm Rock-ingham, North Carolina. The applications showed that the only occupation of the three lessеes was student. Lucas received $220 per month from the Veterans Administration. The others received their income from their parents.
The telephone bill, introduced into evidence, showed five telephone calls to Roсkingham, North Carolina, Cockman’s home. A call to Annapolis, Maryland, Strange’s home (Strange was an admitted ocсupant of the second bedroom on the left), and other calls to Winston-Salem, three to Jacksonville, North Cаrolina, one to Chapel Hill, and one to Holly Oak, Delaware. Lucas’s I.D. card gave his address as 3850 Tangle Lanе, Winston-Salem. This was issued in September 1972.
Defendants earnestly contend that there is nothing in the evidence to connеct them with the contraband or to place them in even constructive possession. We disagree. Defendants’ primary argument is that neither defendant was present at the apartment and they could easily have been living elsewhere. In
State v. Allen,
In
State v. Allen, supra,
Justice Branch, in affirming defendant’s conviction, quoted with approval from
People v. Galloway,
“Where narcotics are found on the premises under the control of the defendant, this fact, in and of itself, gives rise to an inference of knowledge and possession by him which *412 may be sufficient to sustain a conviction for unlawful possession of narcotics, absent other facts which might leave in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.” Id. at 410.
In
State v. Harvey,
“An accused’s possession of narcotics may be actual or constructivе. He has possession of the contraband material within the meaning of the law when he has both the power and intent to control its disposition or use. Where such materials are found on the premises under the control of an accused, this fact, in and of itself, gives rise to an inference of knowledge and possession which may be sufficient to carry the case to the jury on a charge of unlawful possession.” See also State v. Crouch,15 N.C. App. 172 ,189 S.E. 2d 763 (1972).
In the case before us, we think the evidence sufficient to show “both the power and intent to control its disposition or use.” The apartment wаs rented to defendants; there was absolutely no evidence that they had sublet to anyone; the current telephone bill showed telephone calls to the homes of defendants; one’s I.D. card was found in a bedroom; and thе rental record showed the rent to have been paid by the defendants for the month of May on 8 May 1973, the search having been conducted on 9 May 1973.
The jury could find from the evidence that defendants had both the power and intent to control the disposition and use of the marijuana so as to have it in their constructive possession.
The trial judge correctly denied defendants’ motions for nonsuit and correctly submitted the matter to the jury.
No error.