Court Opinion

ID: 9573745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:58:26.173201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:15.445274
License: Public Domain

Judge Wells
dissenting.
In State v. McLaurin, 320 N.C. 143, 357 S.E. 2d 636 (1987), our Supreme Court held that where the defendant’s control of the premises was nonexclusive, there must be other incriminating circumstances (such as close proximity to the contraband found on the premises) to establish constructive possession. The only distinction I can discern between the essential facts in McLaurin and the facts in this case is that in this case defendant was physically present on the premises when the contraband was found. I am not persuaded that this is a sufficient difference for us to distinguish this case from McLaurin. Taking the position that the evidence was insufficient to show constructive possession by defendant, I vote to vacate defendant’s convictions.