An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute 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, twentyseven $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).