Criminal Practice – Marijuana and Hemp – Detective’s Identification of a Controlled Substance

The trial court did not err by allowing Detective Justin Harrell to testify that the plant material in question was marijuana.

There was no error in Defendant’s trial, and we affirmed the Judgments.

Defendant appealed from Judgments entered upon jury verdicts finding him guilty of Trafficking in Heroin by Sale of More than 4 but Less than 14 Grams of Heroin, Trafficking in Heroin by Delivery of More than 4 but Less than 14 Grams of Heroin, Trafficking in a Mixture Containing Heroin by Transporting More than 4 but Less than 14 Grams of a Mixture Containing Heroin, Trafficking in a Mixture Containing Heroin by Possession, Possession with Intent to Sell or Deliver (PWISD) a Controlled Substance (Mixture Containing Heroin), Sale of Marijuana, and Delivery of Marijuana.

The issues on appeal were whether the trial court erred by: (I) denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss his marijuana charges; (II) admitting Detective Harrell’s testimony; (III) admitting Cone’s expert testimony; (IV) instructing the jury using the pattern instruction and Defendant’s requested instruction verbatim; (V) sentencing Defendant on consolidated marijuana offenses concurrently with a longer sentence; and (VI) considering the seriousness and impact of Defendant’s trafficking heroin offenses in sentencing.

Among other things, Defendant contended the trial court plainly erred by allowing Detective Harrell to testify that the plant material in question was marijuana. After testifying to the events leading up to Defendant’s arrest, Detective Harrell testified that, based on his training and experience, the plant material appeared to be marijuana. Consistent with our caselaw, this identification was properly admitted because Detective Harrell is a law enforcement officer with proper training and experience in narcotics. We held the admission of Detective Harrell’s opinion testimony identifying the plant material as marijuana was not error. Therefore, the admission was not plain error.

Defendant contended the trial court erred in denying his Motion to Dismiss the marijuana-related charges because the State did not present sufficient evidence showing his plant material was marijuana, rather than hemp. Based on our caselaw, the State presented substantial evidence the plant material belonging to Defendant was marijuana. Therefore, the trial court properly denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

Defendant argued the trial court plainly erred by not instructing the jury on the legal definitions of marijuana and hemp. We could not conclude the omission of the language specifying the THC content in marijuana as opposed to hemp was plain error. Defendant next asserted he was improperly sentenced for both selling and delivering marijuana as part of the same transaction. Even assuming without deciding that Defendant’s marijuana convictions both arose from the same transaction, we concluded any error was harmless.

Finally, Defendant contended the trial court improperly considered extraneous information during sentencing, specifically outside drug charges and a death by distribution charge. The trial court expressly rejected the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the separate charges on the Record and affirmatively stated that other charges would be considered in separate proceedings. The trial court’s unambiguous language reinforces our conclusion the trial court did not rely on the separate charges against Defendant. There is no indication on this Record the sentence imposed on Defendant was based on improper extraneous information. Therefore, the trial court did not err in sentencing Defendant to consecutive active sentences within the presumptive range set by the sentencing guidelines. Consequently, the trial court properly entered the Judgments on Defendant’s convictions.

No error.

State of North Carolina v. Eric Ruffin (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-047-25, 26 pp.) (Tobias Hampson, J.) Appealed from Martin County Superior Court (Wayland J. Sermons, Jr., J.) Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Assistant Attorney General Alexander H. Ward, for the State; Shelly Bibb DeAdder for Defendant-Appellant. North Carolina Court of Appeals