Case ID: nc-app_14/html/0171-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CAMPBELL, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD GEDDIE
    No. 7212SC106
    (Filed 29 March 1972)
    Narcotics § 4— possession and sale of heroin — sufficiency of evidence
    The State’s evidence was sufficient for the jury in a prosecution for possession and sale of heroin.
    Appeal by defendant from Bailey, Judge, at the 9 August 1971 Session, Cumberland Superior Court.
    The defendant was charged in a proper bill of indictment containing two counts. The first count charged him with the felony of possession of narcotic drugs, namely, heroin. The second count charged him with feloniously selling a narcotic drug, namely, heroin. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and from a jury verdict and the imposition of a sentence of five years on each count to run consecutively, the defendant appealed.
    The evidence on behalf of the State was to the effect that the defendant, during the month of May, 1971, sold a tinfoil packet containing heroin to a law enforcement officer. The sale took place in Fayetteville. The defendant testified in his own behalf to the effect that while he had made a sale, on the occasion in question, it was not heroin but quinine sulfex [sic], which is a harmless medicine that can be purchased at any drug store.
    The factual dispute was submitted to the jury in a charge by the trial judge to which no exception was taken, and the jury as the trier of the facts returned a verdict of guilty on both counts.
    
      Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney Richard B. Conely for the State.
    
    
      James Godwin Taylor, Assistant Public Defender for defendant appellant.
    
   CAMPBELL, Judge.

The evidence on behalf of the State was ample to require the submission to the jury. No error in the trial of the case has been pointed out. We have reviewed the record, and find that the defendant was given a fair trial free from any prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Britt and Graham concur.