State v. Spencer

92 Citing cases

  1. State v. Isom

    No. COA17-24 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2017)

    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.

  2. State v. Chekanow

    No. 390PA16 (N.C. Mar. 2, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    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.

  3. State v. Chekanow

    370 N.C. 488 (N.C. 2018)   Cited 67 times

    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.

  4. State v. Linda Beth Chekanow & Robert David Bishop

    No. COA15-1294 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2016)

    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.

  5. State v. Brown

    310 N.C. 563 (N.C. 1984)   Cited 435 times
    Holding that defendant's possession of a key to the apartment where contraband was found showed sufficient control over the premises for constructive possession

    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.

  6. State v. Tate

    105 N.C. App. 175 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 14 times
    Stating that "[i]n North Carolina, an inference of constructive possession arises against an owner or lessee who occupies the premises where contraband is found, regardless of whether the owner or lessee has exclusive or nonexclusive control of the premises"

    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.

  7. State v. Snyder

    310 S.E.2d 799 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 2 times

    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).

  8. State v. Williams

    58 N.C. App. 307 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 1 times

    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.

  9. State v. McNeil

    359 N.C. 800 (N.C. 2005)   Cited 120 times
    Finding constructive possession of cocaine by defendant despite his lack of exclusive control over area where drugs were discovered

    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

  10. State v. McLaurin

    320 N.C. 143 (N.C. 1987)   Cited 64 times
    Holding the State failed to link drug paraphernalia to defendant in a home where she exercised nonexclusive control

    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.