State v. Reindell
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM R. REINDELL
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
MARTIN, Judge.
The trial court charged that the jury could find defendant guilty of the crime of possession of L.S.D. with intent to distribute, guilty of possession of L.S.D. but without the intent to distribute, or not guilty. Defendant argues that simple possession of L.S.D. is a separate and distinct crime from possession of L.S.D. with intent to distribute, and, therefore, it was error to charge on simple possession of L.S.D. In State v. Aikens, 22 N.C. App. 310 , 206 S.E. 2d 348 (1974), aff'd, 286 N.C. 202 , 209 S.E. 2d 763 (1974), defendant was charged with possession of heroin with the intent to deliver, and this Court *142 held that it was not error for the trial court to instruct the jury that defendant could be found guilty of possession with intent to distribute, or guilty of simple possession, or not guilty. In Aikens, supra, at 312 , Judge Morris reasons that “[i]t is impossible to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute without having first possessed it, either actually upon the person or constructively, with the possible exception of a conspiracy or aiding and abetting.” L.S.D., like heroin, is a controlled substance under Schedule I of G.S. 90-89. Defendant’s assignment of error on this point is overruled.
We have carefully considered defendant’s remaining assignments of error and find them to be without merit.
No error.
Chief Judge Brock and Judge Morris concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.