State v. Nettles

In State v. Nettles, 170 N.C. App. 100, 105, 612 S.E.2d 172, 175, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 640, 617 S.E.2d 286 (2005), the defendant argued that the State did not prove that he possessed the 1.2 grams of cocaine with the intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver the cocaine. Nettles, 170 N.C. App. at 105, 612 S.E.2d at 175. Our Court recognized that "while intent may be shown by direct evidence, it is often proven by circumstantial evidence from which it may be inferred." Id. at 105, 612 S.E.2d at 175-76. Our Court further recognized that "although 'quantity of the controlled substance alone may suffice to support the inference of an intent to transfer, sell, or deliver,' it must be a substantial amount." Id. at 105, 612 S.E.2d at 176 (quoting State v. Morgan, 329 N.C. 654, 659-60, 406 S.E.2d 833, 835-36 (1991)). Our Court held that "it cannot be inferred that the defendant had an intent to sell or distribute from such a de minimus amount alone." Id. at 106, 612 S.E.2d at 176. However, our Court then examined the other evidence to determine whether it raised an inference of the defendant's intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver the cocaine. Id. at 106-08, 612 S.E.2d at 176-77. Our Court stated as follows: "Based on North Carolina case law, the intent to sell or distribute may be inferred from: (1) the packaging, labeling, and storage of the controlled substance; (2) the defendant's activities; (3) the quantity found; (4) the presence of cash or drug paraphernalia." Id. at 106, 612 S.E.2d at 176. Our Court determined that none of these factors were present. Id. at 107, 612 S.E.2d at 176. Therefore, our Court held that "there was insufficient evidence of the defendant's intent to sell or deliver crack cocaine." Id. at 108, 612 S.E.2d at 177.