State v. Keitt, 19 N.C. App. 414, 199 S.E.2d 23 ("heroin"), cert. denied, 284 N.C. 257, 200 S.E.2d 657 (1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 990, 39 L.Ed.2d 887, 94 S.Ct. 1589 (1974); State v. Altman, 15 N.C. App. 257, 189 S.E.2d 793 ("marijuana and other narcotic drugs"), cert. denied, 281 N.C. 759, 191 S.E.2d 362 (1972); State v. Foye, 14 N.C. App. 200, 188 S.E.2d 67 (1972) ("narcotic drugs, the possession of which is a crime"). In State v. Shirley, 12 N.C. App. 440, 183 S.E.2d 880, cert. denied, 279 N.C. 729, 184 S.E.2d 885 (1971), we rejected defendant's contention that a search warrant authorizing a search for "illegally held narcotic drugs" did not permit the introduction of both marijuana and LSD, even though the affidavit on which the warrant rested contained only information about marijuana. C
Where an informant states to the affiant that he personally has seen the stolen items described in the warrant in defendant's possession at the described premises, the affidavit is generally sufficient to show probable cause to believe that the items were possessed at the premises to be searched. See, e.g., Hayes, supra, 291 N.C. at 299, 230 S.E.2d at 150; State v. Graves, 16 N.C. App. 389, 391-92, 192 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1972); State v. Shirley, 12 N.C. App. 440, 443-45, 183 S.E.2d 880, 882-83, cert. denied, 279 N.C. 729, 184 S.E.2d 885 (1971). [A] "two-pronged" test [determines] whether an affidavit is sufficient to show probable cause.
If the informant had stated to the affiant that recently he personally had seen the stolen items in defendant's possession at his residence, the affidavit would clearly suffice. See, e.g., Hayes, supra, 291 N.C. at 299, 230 S.E.2d at 150; State v. Graves, 16 N.C. App. 389, 391-92, 192 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1972); State v. Shirley, 12 N.C. App. 440, 443-44, 183 S.E.2d 880, 882-83, cert. denied, 279 N.C. 729, 184 S.E.2d 885 (1971). Absent a statement, however, claiming personal observation or otherwise
State v. Shirley, 12 N.C. App. 440 183 S.E.2d 880, cert. denied, 279 N.C. 729, 184 S.E.2d 885 (1971). As stated in Moore, supra, the chief consideration is whether the grant or denial of a continuance will be in the furtherance of substantial justice.
Under these circumstances we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion. State v. Henderson, 216 N.C. 99, 3 S.E.2d 357 (1939); State v. Shirley, 12 N.C. App. 440, 183 S.E.2d 880, cert. den., 279 N.C. 729, 184 S.E.2d 885 (1971). This assignment is overruled.
" Having applied the tests of sufficiency as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), and United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1971), in applying the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and as adopted by our State courts in State v. Shirley, 12 N.C. App. 440, 183 S.E.2d 880 (1971), cert. den., 279 N.C. 729, 184 S.E.2d 885 (1971), State v. Flowers, 12 N.C. App. 487, 183 S.E.2d 820 (1971), cert. den., 279 N.C. 728, 184 S.E.2d 885 (1971), State v. Foye, 14 N.C. App. 200, 188 S.E.2d 67 (1972), State v. McKoy, 16 N.C. App. 349, 191 S.E.2d 897 (1972), cert. den., 282 N.C. 584, 193 S.E.2d 744 (1973), State v. Shanklin, 16 N.C. App. 712, 193 S.E.2d 341 (1972), cert. den., 282 N.C. 674, 194 S.E.2d 154 (1973), State v. McCuien, 17 N.C. App. 109, 193 S.E.2d 349 (1972), State v. Ellington, 18 N.C. App. 273, 196 S.E.2d 629 (1973), State v. Spencer, 281 N.C. 121, 187 S.E.2d 779 (1972), State v. Howell, 18 N.C. App. 610, 197 S.E.2d 616 (1973), and State v. Elam, 19 N.C. App. 451, 199 S.E.2d 45 (1973), we conclude the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause to issue a search warrant as required by G.S. 15-26 (b). There was no error in admitting the evidence obtained by the search.
" Having applied the tests of sufficiency as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); and United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1971), in applying the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and as adopted by our State courts in State v. Shirley, 12 N.C. App. 440, 183 S.E.2d 880 (1971), cert. den. 279 N.C. 729, 184 S.E.2d 885 (1971); State v. Flowers, 12 N.C. App. 487, 183 S.E.2d 820 (1971), cert. den. 279 N.C. 728, 184 S.E.2d 885 (1971); State v. Foye, 14 N.C. App. 200, 188 S.E.2d 67 (1972); State v. McKoy, 16 N.C. App. 349, 191 S.E.2d 897 (1972), cert. den. 282 N.C. 584, 193 S.E.2d 744 (1973); State v. Shanklin, 16 N.C. App. 712, 193 S.E.2d 341 (1972), cert. den. 282 N.C. 674, 194 S.E.2d 154 (1973); State v. McCuien, 17 N.C. App. 109, 193 S.E.2d 349 (1972); and State v. Ellington, 18 N.C. App. 273, 196 S.E.2d 629 (1973), we conclude the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause to issue a search warrant as required by G.S. 15-26 (b). By his second assignment of error defendant contends that he was denied due process of law when the trial court refused to allow him to examine, before trial, the State's chemist and evidence, and refused to grant a continuance to allow such examination; that these actions violated the provisions of G.S. 15-155.4 and constituted an abuse of the court's discretion.
The question before the trial court was not whether the informer was in fact reliable, but whether the facts sworn to by the officer in the affidavit as being within his personal knowledge were sufficient to support the magistrate's independent determination that the informer was reliable and that the information given by the informer to the affiant was probably accurate. State v. Shirley, 12 N.C. App. 440, 183 S.E.2d 880, cert. denied, 279 N.C. 729. The affidavit was before the court and a voir dire hearing was not required in order for the court to find that the facts contained therein were sufficient to meet constitutional and statutory requirements.
Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114-115, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, 729, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1514 (1964). In State v. Shirley, 12 N.C. App. 440, 183 S.E.2d 880 (1971), cert. denied 279 N.C. 729 (1971), the facts sworn to in the affidavit as being within the personal knowledge of the affiant were held to be at least minimally sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements for supporting the magistrate's independent determination that the information given by the informer to affiant was probably accurate. There the affiant stated that a reliable informer, who had given information in the past which had proved to be correct and resulted in the arrest of at least two other persons, stated that defendant had marihuana in his possession and that he, the informer, saw it and was offered it for a price.
" Applying the principles enunciated in State v. Shirley, 12 N.C. App. 440, 183 S.E.2d 880 (1971), cert. denied 279 N.C. 729 (1971), and State v. Spencer, 281 N.C. 121, 187 S.E.2d 779 (1972), we are of the opinion that the affidavit complied with the provisions of G.S. 15-26 and met the constitutional standard of reasonableness and probable cause requisite to the issuance of a search warrant. The warrant, by reference to the affidavit, which was made a part of the warrant, described with reasonable certainty the premises to be searched, sufficiently indicated the basis for the finding of probable cause, and sufficiently described the contraband for which the search was to be conducted.