State v. Barnes
747 S.E.2d 912, 2013 WL 5184334, 229 N.C. App. 556 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's involuntary presence in a confinement facility, due to being arrested and transported there by law enforcement, does not negate the 'voluntary act' element for the crime of possessing a controlled substance in that facility. The voluntary act is the knowing possession of the substance itself, not the voluntary entry into the facility.
Facts:
- At approximately 2:00 a.m., Officer Melvin Smith observed Christopher L. Barnes driving his vehicle without operating his headlights.
- Officer Smith initiated a traffic stop and, upon approaching Barnes, noticed a strong smell of alcohol and that Barnes's speech was slurred.
- Following poor performance on field sobriety tests, Officer Smith arrested Barnes for driving while subject to an impairing substance.
- Barnes was handcuffed and transported to the Wayne County jail.
- Upon arrival at the jail, Barnes requested to use the restroom.
- After becoming uncooperative, officers seated Barnes in a chair.
- While being seated, a bag containing marijuana fell from Barnes's pants leg.
Procedural Posture:
- The Wayne County grand jury indicted Christopher L. Barnes on charges including possession of marijuana in a penal institution or local confinement facility.
- The case was tried before a jury in Wayne County Superior Court (trial court).
- At the close of the State's evidence, the trial court dismissed a charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver but allowed the jury to consider the lesser offense of simple possession of marijuana.
- The jury convicted Barnes of simple possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana in a penal institution or local confinement facility.
- The trial court consolidated the convictions for judgment and sentenced Barnes to six to eight months imprisonment.
- Barnes (appellant) appealed the judgment to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's involuntary presence in a local confinement facility, resulting from an arrest, negate the 'voluntary act' element required for a conviction of possessing a controlled substance in that facility under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(e)(9)?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Ervin
No. A defendant's involuntary presence in a confinement facility does not negate the voluntary act required for a conviction of possession of a controlled substance in that facility. The offense is a general intent crime that requires only the knowing possession of a controlled substance while on the premises of the facility. The statute punishes possession in a specific location, not the act of voluntarily introducing contraband into that location. The court reasons that the necessary 'voluntary act' or 'actus reus' is the defendant's knowing possession of the controlled substance, an act that precedes and continues during the involuntary transport to the jail. A defendant in this situation has the option to disclose the presence of the controlled substance to the arresting officer before entering the facility, thereby avoiding the commission of the more serious offense. This interpretation aligns with the majority of jurisdictions that have considered this issue and serves the legislative purpose of keeping controlled substances out of penal institutions.
Dissenting - Judge McGee
Yes. The conviction should be overturned because the State failed to prove the required element of a voluntary act ('actus reus'). Criminal liability requires that a defendant voluntarily commit the forbidden act. Because Barnes was arrested, handcuffed, and transported to the confinement facility against his will, he did not voluntarily bring the marijuana into the facility; rather, law enforcement brought both him and the contraband into the jail. To hold otherwise violates the common law principle that a person cannot be held criminally liable for an involuntary act. Furthermore, the majority's suggestion that Barnes had the 'option' to disclose the marijuana to the officer before entering the jail violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as it would require him to confess to the crime of simple possession to avoid the more serious felony charge.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that for 'possession in a place' offenses in North Carolina, the 'actus reus' is the knowing possession of the contraband itself, not the defendant's voluntary presence at the prohibited location. The ruling significantly impacts individuals arrested for minor offenses while possessing controlled substances, as the arrest itself can elevate a misdemeanor drug possession charge to a felony. The court's reasoning creates a difficult choice for arrestees, forcing them to either remain silent and risk a felony conviction or admit to a lesser crime, which implicates Fifth Amendment concerns noted by the dissent. This case aligns North Carolina law with the majority of U.S. jurisdictions on this issue.
