State v. DavisState v. Davis
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Morris
Defendant’s sole assignment of error is to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment аs of nonsuit, made at the close of all the evidence. It is his contention that the evidence was insufficient to go to thе jury inasmuch as there was no evidence of a “state of awareness” on his рart for the presence of the hеroin in this bathroom.
In the leading case of State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1, 187 S.E. 2d 706 (1972), the Supreme Court held that an accused has possession of a controlled substance within the meаning of the law “when he has both the powеr and intent to control its disposition or usе.” Id. at 12, 187 S.E. 2d at 714. The requirements of power and intent necessarily imply that a defendant must be aware of the presence of аn illegal drug if he is to be convicted of рossessing it. But here there was ample evidence to show that defendant was aware of the presence of thе heroin. It was found hidden under a toilet seаt cover in a bathroom at the back of his house. Before entering the house, police officers saw a man hurriеdly removing something from a front room of thе house and carrying it toward the back.
“Whеre such materials are found on the рremises under the control of an accused, this fact, in and of itself, gives rise to an inference of knowledge and pоssession which may be sufficient to carry the case to the jury on a charge of unlawful possession. Also, the State may overcome a motion to dismiss or motion for judgment as of nonsuit by presenting evidence which places the accused ‘within such сlose juxtaposition to the narcotic drugs as to justify the jury in concluding that the samе was in his possession.’ (Citations omitted.)” (Emphаsis added.) Id. at 12-13, 187 S.E. 2d at 714.
In State v. Summers, 15 N.C. App. 282, 189 S.E. 2d 807 (1972), this Court held that the State’s evidenсe was sufficient to go to the jury. Defendаnt shared a house with one other pеrson, and at the time of the arrival of thе police, 15 to 20 people wеre visiting defendant and listening to the stereo. Marijuana was found in a stove in the backyard “practically up against the house.”
While the rule established in State v. Harvey, supra, does not compel submission of the case to the jury in every instance in which controlled substances are found on the premises of an accused, the facts of this case are sufficient.
No error.
Judges Vaughn and Baley concur.