Court Opinion

ID: 9583168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:35:37.095345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:52.126084
License: Public Domain

HUNTER, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the indictments charging defendant with trafficking in marijuana by possession and trafficking in marijuana by transportation were not facially defective because each failed to correctly specify the quantity of marijuana necessary for conviction of each offense.
As recognized by the majority, one of the minimum standards for an indictment to be valid is that it provides “such certainty in the *519statement of accusation as will... identify the offense with which the accused is sought to be charged[.]” State v. Goforth, 65 N.C. App. 302, 305, 309 S.E.2d 488, 491 (1983) (emphasis added). In Goforth, this Court concluded that such certainty was not present to render the indictments against those defendants valid. Specifically, the indictments in Goforth charging the defendants with conspiring to traffic “ ‘in at least 50 pounds of marijuana[]’ ” allowed for two interpretations — that the defendants either conspired to traffic in exactly 50 pounds of marijuana or in excess of 50 pounds of marijuana. Id. at 306, 309 S.E.2d at 491-92. However, the relevant statute clearly provided for only one interpretation — trafficking “ ‘in excess of 50 pounds (avoirdupois) of marijuana.’ ” Id. at 305, 309 S.E.2d at 491 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). The Goforth Court concluded that the uncertainty as to the offense charged constituted a fatal error in the indictments since the weight of the marijuana was an essential element of that offense. Id. at 306, 309 S.E.2d at 492.
The majority attempts to distinguish Goforth by concluding that “the indictments in the instant case, though overbroad, do allege the required amount of marijuana[]” and thus, “such over-inclusive drafting does not invalidate the indictments.” I do not agree with this distinction, believing instead that Goforth is analogous to the case sub judice. Here, as in Goforth, the indictments alleging that the amount of marijuana be either “10 pounds or more” were subject to two different interpretations despite N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(h)(l)(a) (2003) requiring that the amount of marijuana defendant possessed and transported be “in excess of 10 pounds[.]” The State’s overboard misstatement of the statute in the indictments provides the same level of uncertainty as to the offense for which defendant was charged that the Goforth Court sought to prevent, precedent by which I feel this Court is bound. See In the Matter of Appeal from Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989).
Accordingly, the judgments based on these indictments should be arrested and the verdicts and sentences vacated. This finding would not prevent the State from proceeding against defendant upon new and sufficient bills of indictment if it so desires. See Goforth, 65 N.C. App. at 306, 309 S.E.2d at 492. Finally, while I agree with the majority’s conclusion regarding defendant’s second contention, there would have been no need to reach that contention had the majority found that the indictments were facially defective.