Summary
holding that an indictment charging the unlawful delivery of marijuana did not need to allege that the defendant had received no remuneration on the grounds that, since the defendant’s guilt could be proved by either evidence of a transfer of more than five grams or a transfer for remuneration and since, as stated in Land , "the methods of proof set out in [Section] 90-95(b) are mere evidentiary matters, they need not be included in the indictment" (alterations in the petition)
Summary of this case from State v. LoftonOpinion
No. 510A12.
2013-06-13
STATE of North Carolina v. Robin Eugene LAND.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Ebony J. Pittman and Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State. Don Willey for defendant-appellant.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A–30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ––– N.C.App. ––––, 733 S.E.2d 588 (2012), finding no error after appeal of judgments entered on 14 December 2010 by Judge Eric L. Levinson in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. On 24 January 2013, the Supreme Court allowed defendant's petition for discretionary review of an additional issue. Heard in the Supreme Court on 16 April 2013. Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Ebony J. Pittman and Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State. Don Willey for defendant-appellant.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.