State v. Saunders

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: October 21, 2014
• Docket: 14-400
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

NO. COA14-400 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 21 October 2014

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. Johnston County Nos. 12 CRS 3322, 54989 TIMOTHY ANQUAN SAUNDERS

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 24 July 2013 by

Judge Thomas H. Lock in Johnston County Superior Court. Heard

in the Court of Appeals 22 September 2014.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Charlene Richardson, for the State.

Kevin P. Bradley for defendant-appellant.

McCULLOUGH, Judge.

Defendant Timothy Anquan Saunders appeals from the judgment

entered after a jury found him guilty of possession of cocaine

and having attained habitual felon status. Defendant contends

the trial court erred by overruling his objection to a police

officer’s testimony that the denominations of the currency

defendant surrendered at the time he was searched were

indicative of drug activity. We find no prejudicial error. -2- On 14 August 2012, Smithfield Police Department Officer

Robert Stewart was dispatched to help Selma Police Department

Captain Richard Cooper search for a man named Joshua Martin at a

motel. Selma Police were looking for Mr. Martin as part of a

large, undercover drug operation, and Captain Cooper called for

assistance because he thought defendant might also be present

with Mr. Martin. When the officers knocked on what they

believed was Mr. Martin’s motel room door, defendant answered

the door and consented to a search of the room.

On a nightstand in the room, Officer Stewart saw a

substance that he believed to be marijuana and a small plastic

baggy. Defendant told Officer Stewart that the marijuana was

just a “blunt.” Officer Stewart asked defendant if he “had

anything else on him.” In response, defendant reached into his

left pocket and pulled out a large amount of currency. The

currency totaled $900, consisting of three $100 bills, twenty-

seven $20 bills, and six $10 bills. Over defendant’s objection,

Officer Stewart testified, “[d]ue to the denominations, I

believe that it was from the illegal drug trade[.]”

In the smaller, “key pocket” on defendant’s right side,

Officer Stewart felt a bulge. Officer Stewart reached in the

pocket and pulled out a plastic baggy that contained six smaller -3- baggies of a “white powdery rock type substance.” The state

crime lab later tested the substance and determined it was

cocaine base. Officer Stewart placed defendant under arrest.

When the officers searched the rest of the motel room, they

discovered a box for a digital scale, which Officer Stewart

believed was used in the drug trade. The officers allowed

defendant to call his family to claim his personal property, and

Officer Stewart heard defendant say “they caught me with some

work, I had about six twenties.” Based on his experience in

drug interdiction, Officer Stewart believed that defendant used

the word “work” to mean selling drugs.

The jury found defendant guilty of possession of cocaine

and having attained habitual felon status, but not guilty of

possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, possession of

marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial

court sentenced defendant to 30 to 48 months in prison.

Defendant appeals.

In his sole argument on appeal, defendant contends the

trial court erred by overruling his objection to Officer

Stewart’s testimony that the denominations of the currency he

possessed caused the officer to believe the money was from the

drug trade. We disagree. -4- Defendant contends that admission of Officer Stewart’s

testimony violated N.C. R. Evidence 404(b) and 701, which govern

the admissibility of evidence of other bad acts and non-expert

opinion testimony. “A trial court’s ruling on an evidentiary

point will be presumed to be correct unless the complaining

party can demonstrate that the particular ruling was in fact

incorrect. Even if the complaining party can show that the

trial court erred in its ruling, relief ordinarily will not be

granted absent a showing of prejudice.” State v. Herring, 322

N.C. 733, 749, 370 S.E.2d 363, 373 (1988) (citations omitted).

Our General Statutes provide:

A defendant is prejudiced by errors relating to rights arising other than under the Constitution of the United States when there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises. The burden of showing such prejudice under this subsection is upon the defendant.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(a) (2013); see State v. Streeter, 191

N.C. App. 496, 502, 663 S.E.2d 879, 884 (2008) (defendant failed

to establish prejudicial error in the admission of evidence).

In this case, even were we to assume that Officer Stewart’s

testimony about the currency was inadmissible on either ground

asserted by defendant, he cannot demonstrate prejudice. -5- Defendant was acquitted of possession with intent to sell or

deliver cocaine, a charge implicated by Officer Stewart’s

testimony that the denominations of the currency were indicative

of the drug trade, but the evidence of simple possession of

cocaine was overwhelming. Officer Stewart seized six baggies of

a white, powdery, rock-type substance from defendant’s own

pocket, and laboratory testing confirmed that the substance was,

in fact, cocaine base. Officer Stewart also saw marijuana in

the room and defendant acknowledged that he had a “blunt.”

Officer Stewart heard defendant speaking on the phone using

terms that indicated he was involved in drug activity, and the

officers found a box for a digital scale in the motel room. In

light of that evidence, we hold defendant received a trial free

of prejudicial error.

No prejudicial error.

Judges CALABRIA and GEER concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).