State v. Saunders ( 2014 )

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
NO. COA14-400
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 21 October 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Johnston County
Nos. 12 CRS 3322, 54989
TIMOTHY ANQUAN SAUNDERS
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 24 July 2013 by
Judge Thomas H. Lock in Johnston County Superior Court. Heard
in the Court of Appeals 22 September 2014.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Charlene Richardson, for the State.
Kevin P. Bradley for defendant-appellant.
McCULLOUGH, Judge.
Defendant Timothy Anquan Saunders appeals from the judgment
entered after a jury found him guilty of possession of cocaine
and having attained habitual felon status. Defendant contends
the trial court erred by overruling his objection to a police
officer’s testimony that the denominations of the currency
defendant surrendered at the time he was searched were
indicative of drug activity. We find no prejudicial error.
-2-
On 14 August 2012, Smithfield Police Department Officer
Robert Stewart was dispatched to help Selma Police Department
Captain Richard Cooper search for a man named Joshua Martin at a
motel. Selma Police were looking for Mr. Martin as part of a
large, undercover drug operation, and Captain Cooper called for
assistance because he thought defendant might also be present
with Mr. Martin. When the officers knocked on what they
believed was Mr. Martin’s motel room door, defendant answered
the door and consented to a search of the room.
On a nightstand in the room, Officer Stewart saw a
substance that he believed to be marijuana and a small plastic
baggy. Defendant told Officer Stewart that the marijuana was
just a “blunt.” Officer Stewart asked defendant if he “had
anything else on him.” In response, defendant reached into his
left pocket and pulled out a large amount of currency. The
currency totaled $900, consisting of three $100 bills, twenty-
seven $20 bills, and six $10 bills. Over defendant’s objection,
Officer Stewart testified, “[d]ue to the denominations, I
believe that it was from the illegal drug trade[.]”
In the smaller, “key pocket” on defendant’s right side,
Officer Stewart felt a bulge. Officer Stewart reached in the
pocket and pulled out a plastic baggy that contained six smaller
-3-
baggies of a “white powdery rock type substance.” The state
crime lab later tested the substance and determined it was
cocaine base. Officer Stewart placed defendant under arrest.
When the officers searched the rest of the motel room, they
discovered a box for a digital scale, which Officer Stewart
believed was used in the drug trade. The officers allowed
defendant to call his family to claim his personal property, and
Officer Stewart heard defendant say “they caught me with some
work, I had about six twenties.” Based on his experience in
drug interdiction, Officer Stewart believed that defendant used
the word “work” to mean selling drugs.
The jury found defendant guilty of possession of cocaine
and having attained habitual felon status, but not guilty of
possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, possession of
marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial
court sentenced defendant to 30 to 48 months in prison.
Defendant appeals.
In his sole argument on appeal, defendant contends the
trial court erred by overruling his objection to Officer
Stewart’s testimony that the denominations of the currency he
possessed caused the officer to believe the money was from the
drug trade. We disagree.
-4-
Defendant contends that admission of Officer Stewart’s
testimony violated N.C. R. Evidence 404(b) and 701, which govern
the admissibility of evidence of other bad acts and non-expert
opinion testimony. “A trial court’s ruling on an evidentiary
point will be presumed to be correct unless the complaining
party can demonstrate that the particular ruling was in fact
incorrect. Even if the complaining party can show that the
trial court erred in its ruling, relief ordinarily will not be
granted absent a showing of prejudice.” State v. Herring, 322
N.C. 733, 749, 370 S.E.2d 363, 373 (1988) (citations omitted).
Our General Statutes provide:
A defendant is prejudiced by errors relating
to rights arising other than under the
Constitution of the United States when there
is a reasonable possibility that, had the
error in question not been committed, a
different result would have been reached at
the trial out of which the appeal arises.
The burden of showing such prejudice under
this subsection is upon the defendant.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(a) (2013); see State v. Streeter, 191
N.C. App. 496, 502, 663 S.E.2d 879, 884 (2008) (defendant failed
to establish prejudicial error in the admission of evidence).
In this case, even were we to assume that Officer Stewart’s
testimony about the currency was inadmissible on either ground
asserted by defendant, he cannot demonstrate prejudice.
-5-
Defendant was acquitted of possession with intent to sell or
deliver cocaine, a charge implicated by Officer Stewart’s
testimony that the denominations of the currency were indicative
of the drug trade, but the evidence of simple possession of
cocaine was overwhelming. Officer Stewart seized six baggies of
a white, powdery, rock-type substance from defendant’s own
pocket, and laboratory testing confirmed that the substance was,
in fact, cocaine base. Officer Stewart also saw marijuana in
the room and defendant acknowledged that he had a “blunt.”
Officer Stewart heard defendant speaking on the phone using
terms that indicated he was involved in drug activity, and the
officers found a box for a digital scale in the motel room. In
light of that evidence, we hold defendant received a trial free
of prejudicial error.
No prejudicial error.
Judges CALABRIA and GEER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).