From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Reese

North Carolina Court of Appeals
Apr 1, 1977
234 S.E.2d 41 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977)

Opinion

No. 7623SC941

Filed 20 April 1977

Narcotics 4.5 — felonious possession of drug — failure to instruct on quantity possessed — error In a prosecution for felonious possession of ethchlorvynol, the trial court committed prejudicial error in failing to instruct the jury that defendant must have possessed more than 100 ethchlorvynol tablets in order to be guilty of felonious possession of the drug.

APPEAL by defendant from Seay, Judge. Judgment entered 4 August 1976 in Superior Court, WILKES County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 April 1977.

Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Jack Cozort, for the State.

Gregory Joyce, by Dennis R. Joyce, for defendant appellant.


Defendant was found guilty by a jury of felonious possession of ethchlorvynol, a violation of G.S. 90-95(d)(2). We agree with defendant's contention that the trial judge failed to charge the jury on one of the essential elements of the crime charged. Specifically, the jury was not instructed that defendant must have possessed more than 100 ethchlorvynol tablets in order to be guilty of felonious possession of the drug.

Under the terms of G.S. 90-95(d)(2) ". . . if the quantity of the controlled substance . . . exceeds 100 tablets, capsules or other dosage units, . . . the violation shall be a felony . . . ." Possession of 100 dosage units or less is a misdemeanor. Possession of more than 100 dosage units is an essential element of felonious possession of ethchlorvynol. The failure of the court to so charge was prejudicial error, since the essential elements of the crime must be explained to the jury. G.S. 1-180; see also, State v. Wingo, 30 N.C. App. 123, 226 S.E.2d 221 (1976).

We cannot agree with the State's position that since there was no evidence to indicate defendant possessed less than 100 tablets it is manifest that the quantity exceeded 100 tablets. Defendant did not admit that he possessed more than 100 tablets, and thus it was for the jury to decide the quantity of tablets defendant possessed.

New trial.

Judges MORRIS and HEDRICK concur.


Summaries of

State v. Reese

North Carolina Court of Appeals
Apr 1, 1977
234 S.E.2d 41 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977)
Case details for

State v. Reese

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ALAN.W. REESE

Court:North Carolina Court of Appeals

Date published: Apr 1, 1977

Citations

234 S.E.2d 41 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977)
234 S.E.2d 41

Citing Cases

State v. Myers

State v. Wilhelm, 59 N.C. App. 298, 303, 296 S.E.2d 664, 667 (1982); State v. Riera, 276 N.C. 361, 172 S.E.2d…

State v. Gooche

Cf. State v. Carson, 296 N.C. 31, 46-57, 249 S.E.2d 417 (1978) (in which it was held, based upon the…