In State v. Miller, 344 N.C. 658, 477 S.E.2d 915 (1996), our Supreme Court considered a case where the arresting officers could not locate a juvenile rights form before questioning a juvenile murder suspect. Instead, the officers used an adult Miranda form and inserted the additional clause, "do you wish to answer questions without your parents/parent present ?" Miller, 344 N.C. at 664, 477 S.E.2d at 919. Again, this warning is nearly identical to the warning given in the instant case. Our Supreme Court upheld the reading of this warning as sufficient to satisfy both Miranda and G.S. 7A-595. Id. at 666, 477 S.E.2d at 921. In State v. Miller, 191 N.C. App. 124, 127, 661 S.E.2d 770, 773 (2008), the Court held an inference of constructive possession was not supported by substantial evidence where the only evidence linking defendant to the cocaine was his proximity to the cocaine and his birth certificate found in the same room as the cocaine. Miller, 191 N.C. App. at 127, 661 S.E.2d at 773. However in State v. Matias, 354 N.C. 549, 552, 556 S.E.2d 269, 271 (2001), proximity to the contraband plus testimony that defendant was the only person likely to have placed it in the location found were sufficient circumstances for a jury to infer constructive possession.