Court Opinion

ID: 9846723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:47:03.736895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:46.295907
License: Public Domain

ELMORE, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority opinion that there was no error in defendant’s convictions of the crimes to which he entered guilty pleas (traf*49ficking by possessing 100 or more but less than 500 dosage units of MDA and for sale of Schedule I substance, MDA). However, I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion upholding defendant’s jury conviction of conspiracy to traffic by possessing 100 or more but less than 500 dosage units of MDA. I would address on the merits defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress, rather than dismissing it based on rules violations. Accordingly, because I believe that the trial court erred in its denial of defendant’s motion, I would vacate defendant’s conviction of conspiracy to traffic by possessing 100 or more but less than 500 dosage units of MDA.
Preliminarily, I would note that while the complete order is not in the record, the trial court’s findings and conclusions appear in the transcript at pages 18-21. It is true that the notice of appeal does not reference the order denying the motion to suppress. However, this issue was argued vigorously before this Court at oral arguments, and the panel responded with questions directed to this issue. I agree with a recent dissent by Judge Geer, who wrote that “the proper line is to dismiss only those appeals that substantively affect the ability of the appellee to respond and this Court to address the appeal.” Stann v. Levine, 180 N.C. App. 1, 16, 636 S.E.2d 214, 223 (2006) (Geer, J., dissenting). Given that, in my view, the State practically conceded the unconstitutionality of the search at oral arguments, I would invoke Rule 2 of our Rules of Appellate Procedure to avoid manifest injustice and address this issue on its merits. N.C.R. App. P. Rule 2 (2006) (“To prevent manifest injustice to a party ... [an appellate court] may ... suspend or vary the requirements or provisions of any of [the] rules[.]”).
Defendant essentially argues that a recent United States Supreme Court decision establishes that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 164 L. Ed. 2d 208 (2006). In Randolph, the majority held that “a warrantless seárch of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident.” Id. at 120, 164 L. Ed. 2d at 226.
Indeed, the State concedes that Randolph applies. It argues, however, that the error was harmless. “A violation of the defendant’s rights under the Constitution of the United States is prejudicial unless the appellate court finds that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is upon the State to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error was harmless.” N.C. Gen. *50Stat. § 15A-1443(b) (2005). “[T]he question is ‘whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’ ” State v. Soyars, 332 N.C. 47, 58, 418 S.E.2d 480, 487 (1992) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705, 710 (1967)) (internal quotations omitted).
It is true that “ [overwhelming evidence of guilt may render constitutional error harmless.” State v. Thompson, 118 N.C. App. 33, 42, 454 S.E.2d 271, 276 (1995) (citation omitted). The State contends that it provided such “overwhelming evidence” in this case. However, aside from the MDA and ecstacy found in defendant’s apartment, the only evidence that tended to show his guilt was the testimony of police officers and Powell. The officers in question were not witnesses to the interaction between Powell and defendant on the date in question, nor were they privy to the phone conversations regarding the set-up of the drug deal. Powell testified against defendant at trial as part of her own plea deal. This evidence simply does not rise to the level of “overwhelming evidence.” The discovery of MDA and ecstacy in the apartment was clearly a major part of the case against defendant that “contributed to [his] conviction.” Soyars, at 58, 418 S.E.2d at 487.1 would therefore hold that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would address on the merits defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. Having done so, I would hold that defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated, and that the trial court erred in its denial of defendant’s motion. Accordingly, I would vacate defendant’s conviction of conspiracy to traffic by possessing 100 or more but less than 500 dosage units of MDA, and grant him a new trial on that charge.