State v. Banks

Summary

The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed David Brown Banks’s convictions for trafficking in opioids by possession, possession with intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance, and maintaining a dwelling for controlled substances. The court held that Banks was not entitled to an ultimate-user exemption jury instruction because the evidence did not support lawful possession for personal or household use, and that the State presented sufficient evidence to withstand his motion to dismiss.

Holdings

1. The trial court was not required to instruct the jury on the ultimate-user exemption because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Banks, did not constitute substantial evidence that he lawfully possessed the oxycodone for his own use or for the use of a household member. The failure to give the instruction therefore was not error, much less plain error.
2. Banks's ineffective-assistance claim lacked merit because the evidence did not support the ultimate-user exemption instruction that counsel allegedly should have requested.
3. The trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss because the State presented substantial evidence that Banks possessed more than fourteen but less than twenty-eight grams of oxycodone, an opioid, and that he was the person who possessed it. The State was not required to negate the ultimate-user exemption.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the statutory ultimate-user exemption to trafficking in opioids by possession.
2. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request an ultimate-user exemption instruction.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Banks's conviction for trafficking in opioids by possession and therefore whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss.

Disposition

affirmed