In State v. Spenser, the North Carolina Supreme Court held the close proximity of the defendant to the marijuana was sufficient for a jury to conclude it was in defendant's possession. 281 N.C. 121, 130, 187 S.E.2d 779, 784 (1972). In Spenser, defendant lived in a combination residence and store in rural North Carolina.
Further, this case involves consideration of a more sprawling area of real property that included a remote section where the marijuana was growing and to which others could potentially gain access. In State v. Spencer, an opinion issued on the same day as Harvey, this Court did not rely on ownership and occupation of the premises alone to determine the evidence was sufficient to show the defendant constructively possessed marijuana discovered in a pig shed approximately twenty yards behind his home and marijuana growing in a cornfield fifty-five yards beyond the pig pen. 281 N.C. 121, 129-30, 187 S.E.2d 779, 784-85 (1972). Rather, the Court also considered that the defendant had been seen in and around the shed, that marijuana seeds were found in his bedroom, and that a path linked the pig shed to the cornfield when holding that the evidence in that case raised a reasonable inference that the defendant exercised control over the pig shed, the cornfield, and their contents.
Further, this case involves consideration of a more sprawling area of real property that included a remote section where the marijuana was growing and to which others could potentially gain access. In State v. Spencer , an opinion issued on the same day as Harvey , this Court did not rely on ownership and occupation of the premises alone to determine the evidence was sufficient to show the defendant constructively possessed marijuana discovered in a pig shed approximately twenty yards behind his home and marijuana growing in a cornfield fifty-five yards beyond the pig pen. 281 N.C. 121, 129-30, 187 S.E.2d 779, 784-85 (1972). Rather, the Court also considered that the defendant had been seen in and around the shed, that marijuana seeds were found in his bedroom, and that a path linked the pig shed to the cornfield when holding that the evidence in that case raised a reasonable inference that the defendant exercised control over the pig shed, the cornfield, and their contents.
Miller, 363 N.C. at 99, 678 S.E.2d at 594. In State v. Spencer, 281 N.C. 121, 187 S.E.2d 779 (1972), a pig pen where marijuana was located was roughly twenty-five yards from the defendant's home, and a path, with no intersecting paths, started at a fence near the pig pen and continued fifty to fifty-five yards to a corn field where marijuana plants were found growing in rows. Id. at 123, 187 S.E.2d at 780-81.
Constructive possession of contraband material exists when there is no actual personal dominion over the material, but there is an intent and capability to maintain control and dominion over it. State v. Spencer, 281 N.C. 121, 187 S.E.2d 779 (1972). Although it is not necessary to show that an accused has exclusive possession of the premises where contraband is found, where possession of the premises is nonexclusive, constructive possession of the contraband materials may not be inferred without other incriminating circumstances.
However, the evidence of the single, well-worn path leading directly from defendant's house in which several persons resided to the premises on which the marijuana patches were discovered, it serving as the only access to the marijuana, establishes, at a minimum, defendant's nonexclusive possession of such premises. See, e.g., State v. Spencer, 281 N.C. 121, 187 S.E.2d 779 (1972); State v. Beaver, 317 N.C. 643, 346 S.E.2d 476 (1986). This nonexclusive possession of the premises on which the marijuana patches were discovered, when combined with the "other incriminating circumstance" of defendant's possession of marijuana found at his residence, supports an inference of defendant's constructive possession of the marijuana patches.
When the evidence is primarily circumstantial, "the question for the court is whether a reasonable inference of defendant's guilt may be drawn from the circumstances." State v. Spencer, 281 N.C. 121. 129, 187 S.E.2d 779, 784 (1972).
Those cases are also distinguishable. In State v. Spencer, 281 N.C. 121, 187 S.E.2d 779 (1972), the defendant lived in a combination residence and store in rural Beaufort County. The officers searched the residence-store and a pigpen located about twenty yards behind defendant's home.
State v. Beaver, 317 N.C. 643, 648, 346 S.E.2d 476, 480 (1986).State v. Matias, 354 N.C. 549, 552, 556 S.E.2d 269, 270-71 (2001), quoted in Butler, 356 N.C. at 145-46, 567 S.E.2d at 140 (emphasis added); see also State v. Spencer, 281 N.C. 121, 129-30, 187 S.E.2d 779, 784 (1972) (affirming defendant's conviction for possession of marijuana because the evidence, that the defendant had been seen several times in and around a pig shed where marijuana was found approximately twenty yards from his residence, and that marijuana seeds were found in the defendant's bedroom, was sufficient for the jury to consider the charge based on constructive possession); State v. Allen, 279 N.C. 406, 412, 183 S.E.2d 680, 684-85 (1971) (holding that evidence that the utilities at a residence where heroin was sold were listed in defendant's name, that an army identification card bearing the defendant's name and other papers belonging to the defendant were located in the same bedroom where heroin was found, and that a sixteen-year old obtained heroin from the house and sold it at defendant's direction was sufficient to have the jury consider whether the defendant possessed the heroin under a theory of constructive possession). "`Where [contraband is] found on the premises under the
State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 569, 313 S.E.2d 585, 589 (1984). Cf. State v. Spencer, 281 N.C. 121, 130, 187 S.E.2d 779, 784 (1972) (close physical proximity of defendant to marijuana sufficient for jury to conclude it was in defendant's possession). The Court of Appeals correctly noted ample evidence that defendant resided at 106 Starhill Avenue and that she was in control of the premises.