State v. Hammond ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA22-715
Filed 07 March 2023
Henderson County, No. 18CRS051036
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
BOEVINO ANTWANE HAMMOND, Defendant.
Appeal by Defendant from Judgment entered 16 March 2022 by Judge William
H. Coward in Henderson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24
January 2023.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General John A.
Payne, for the State.
Mary McCullers Reece for Defendant-Appellant.
RIGGS, Judge.
Defendant Boevino Antwane Hammond appeals from a judgment entered after
a jury found him guilty on one count of trafficking opium or heroin, i.e., fentanyl. At
trial, Mr. Hammond requested—but was denied—an instruction that the jury must
find he “knew that what [he] possessed was fentanyl” in order to convict him of the
crime charged. Mr. Hammond renews this argument by direct appeal and petition
for writ of certiorari, contending the trial court prejudicially erred in declining to give
the requested instruction. After careful review, we grant certiorari review in our
discretion and hold that that Mr. Hammond has failed to show error on the merits of
STATE V. HAMMOND
Opinion of the Court
his appeal.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On 15 March 2018, the Henderson County Sheriff’s Office SWAT team
executed a search warrant at a home near Fletcher, North Carolina, in an attempt to
locate and arrest Mr. Hammond on several outstanding arrest warrants. Officers
immediately located Mr. Hammond upon entry into the home and placed him under
arrest without incident. Mr. Hammond did not speak to police in exercise of his Fifth
Amendment rights.
One of the arresting officers, James Hurn, smelled marijuana and heard a
toilet running somewhere in the house. Officer Hurn informed his supervisor of his
findings, who in turn pursued and obtained a warrant to search the home for drugs
later that day.
Following issuance of the new search warrant, Officer Hurn began looking
through the primary bedroom for contraband. He started his search by looking
through a laundry hamper, which contained a black plastic bag with a solid white
substance inside. Believing the substance to be cocaine, Officer Hurn had the
substance photographed, catalogued, and field tested. That test returned a positive
result for suspected cocaine. Officer Hurn then found suspected drug paraphernalia
elsewhere in the bedroom, including a Magic Bullet blender, inositol, and scales.
Officer Hurn also searched the home’s bathroom, locating a powdered
substance caked around the toilet bowl. This, too, tested positive for suspected
-2-
STATE V. HAMMOND
Opinion of the Court
cocaine on a field test. Another officer, Michael Gehring, then collected the substance
for testing at the State Crime Lab.
The homeowner returned to the property later that afternoon while the search
was still underway. Police placed her under arrest for possession of trafficking
amounts of cocaine based on the belief that the substance found in her home was
cocaine. Subsequent but pre-indictment testing at the State Crime Lab in late 2018
revealed that the white powder from the hamper and toilet bowl was actually
fentanyl.
A grand jury indicted Mr. Hammond on 7 January 2019 for trafficking opium
or heroin by possession. Trial began on 14 March 2022, with Officer Hurn, Officer
Gehring, and other members of law enforcement testifying consistent with the above
recitation of the facts. On cross-examination, Officer Gehring explained why police
charged the homeowner with possession of cocaine and not fentanyl:
[OFFICER GEHRING]: There’s a lot of different reasons
why we decided to charge with possession of cocaine
instead of fentanyl. . . . I’ve come across cocaine multiple
times, whether it be user amounts or large quantities—
amounts up in Asheville, as well as Henderson County
itself. . . . [O]nce I came back down to Henderson County,
the white powder that we ever really came across was
cocaine. And that was based upon State Lab results, as
well as actual individuals telling us, yes, that’s cocaine. . . .
....
And like I stated yesterday, we actually came into contact
with an individual who was in the process of trying to dye
his cocaine red because people were so scared of fentanyl
-3-
STATE V. HAMMOND
Opinion of the Court
at that time in Henderson County.
....
So all of that combined with now I have a white powder
substance in large quantities, like I’ve seen multiple times
before. I’ve not seen or heard of fentanyl in Henderson
County. None of our informants have talked about
fentanyl in Henderson County whatever. Have talked
about cocaine multiple times in Henderson County, white
powder, white powder. What’s more prevalent in the area?
What have we seen? What have we heard from
informants? Based upon all that information, I have to go
based off of what I feel is cocaine at that time.
[DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL]: And it tested positive for
cocaine?
[OFFICER GEHRING]: It did. Yes, sir.
[DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL]: Okay. And so on the date
of offence, March 15, 2018, at the end of that day everyone
thinks it’s cocaine?
[OFFICER GEHRING]: Yes, sir. Very good reasonable
belief. Yes, sir.
Following the close of the State’s evidence, Mr. Hammond informed the trial
court that he did not intend to testify and rested without presenting any evidence.
The trial court then held the charge conference, during which Mr. Hammond’s
counsel made the following request:
[I]n foot note number 2, that is in 260.10, Possession, it
says: If the defendant contends that the defendant did not
know the true identity of what the defendant possessed,
add this language to the first sentence, . . . [“]and the
defendant knew that what the defendant possessed
was . . . fentanyl.[”]
-4-
STATE V. HAMMOND
Opinion of the Court
I certainly think there is evidence in this case from every
witness that has taken the stand that the identity of the
substance is in question, since it was field tested and
believed to be cocaine and charged as cocaine at the
beginning. And so we are requesting as part of the
possession instruction to inform the jury that they have to
find that [Mr. Hammond] knew that he possessed fentanyl.
The trial court denied the requested instruction, reasoning that law enforcement’s
initial misapprehension of the substance’s identity had no bearing on Mr. Hammond’s
knowledge, and “[t]here was no evidence in this case that the defendant did not know
[the substance was fentanyl]. He didn’t testify.”
Closing arguments were given but not transcribed and, after instruction and
deliberation, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The trial court proceeded to sentence
Mr. Hammond to 225 to 282 months imprisonment. A written judgment was entered
on 16 March 2022, which states that Mr. Hammond gave notice of appeal from the
judgment even though no such notice appears in the trial transcript.
Mr. Hammond filed a pro se written notice of appeal on 21 March 2022. Though
timely, the notice does not identify the judgment appealed or the court to which the
appeal is taken as required by N.C. R. App. P. 4(b) (2022). Nor does the notice indicate
service on the State as required by N.C. R. App. P. 4(a)(2) (2022). The trial court
nonetheless entered appellate entries on 25 March 2022, and Mr. Hammond’s counsel
filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this Court on 27 September 2022.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Appellate Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Certiorari
-5-
STATE V. HAMMOND
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Hammond concedes that his written notice of appeal does not comply with
the requirements of N.C. R. App. P. 4(a)(2) and (b). He also argues, however, that
these defects do not divest this Court of jurisdiction; indeed, this Court has noted that
failure to serve the State and identify the court to which the appeal is taken “are not
the sorts of defects requiring dismissal of an appeal on a jurisdictional basis.” State
v. Baungartner, 273 N.C. App. 580, 583, 850 S.E.2d 549, 551 (2020) (citation omitted).
We have also granted certiorari review in similar circumstances where, as here, the
State lodges no substantive argument against such review. Id.; see also State v.
Thorne, 279 N.C. App. 655, 659, 865 S.E.2d 768, 771 (2021) (granting certiorari
review when the defendant’s pro se written notice of appeal was not served on the
State and failed to designate the court to which the appeal was taken). Assuming,
arguendo, that Mr. Hammond’s pro se notice of appeal raises jurisdictional concerns,
we allow his petition for writ of certiorari in our discretion to reach the merits of his
appeal.
B. Standard of Review
We review a preserved challenge to jury instructions de novo. State v.
Richardson, 270 N.C. App. 149, 152, 838 S.E.2d 470, 473 (2020). A trial court must
give the requested instruction if it is supported by the evidence when taken in the
light most favorable to the defendant. State v. Mercer, 373 N.C. 459, 462, 838 S.E.2d
359, 362 (2020). To prevail on appeal, a defendant must demonstrate both error and
a “reasonable possibility” that the jury would have reached a different result had the
-6-
STATE V. HAMMOND
Opinion of the Court
requested instruction been given. State v. Brewington, 343 N.C. 448, 454, 471 S.E.2d
398, 402 (1996).
C. The Trial Court Did Not Err
Mr. Hammond’s requested instruction is appropriately given only “when the
defendant denies having knowledge of the controlled substance that he has been
charged with possessing or transporting, [as] the existence of the requisite guilty
knowledge becomes ‘a determinative issue of fact’ about which the trial court must
instruct the jury.” State v. Galaviz-Torres, 368 N.C. 44, 49, 772 S.E.2d 434, 437
(2015). Stated differently, “when the defendant introduces evidence of lack of guilty
knowledge the court must charge on it.” State v. Nobles, 329 N.C. 239, 244, 404 S.E.2d
668, 671 (1991). See also State v. Elliott, 232 N.C. 377, 379, 61 S.E.2d 93, 95 (1950)
(holding a guilty knowledge instruction is required when a defendant “specifically
pleas want of knowledge . . . and offer[s] evidence in support of that plea.”).
Mr. Hammond argues that the arresting and investigating officers’
misapprehension of the substance found in the home amounts to evidence that Mr.
Hammond did not know he was in possession of fentanyl. Specifically, he seizes on
the following exchange in arguing the requested instruction should have been given:
[DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL]: Okay. And so on the date
of offence, March 15, 2018, at the end of that day everyone
thinks it’s cocaine?
[OFFICER GEHRING]: Yes, sir. Very good reasonable
belief. Yes, sir.
-7-
STATE V. HAMMOND
Opinion of the Court
(Emphasis added). Mr. Hammond posits that because Officer Gehring did not
expressly limit his testimony that “everyone” believes the substance was cocaine to
the arresting and investigating officers, the jury should have been given the
opportunity to resolve whether Mr. Hammond lacked knowledge of the substance’s
true identity upon proper instruction.
Mr. Hammond’s argument fails for the simple reason that there is no
ambiguity in Officer Gehring’s testimony suggesting that Mr. Hammond believed the
fentanyl to be cocaine. Read in context, it is apparent that Officer Gehring was
referring to the knowledge of the officers who initially arrested Mr. Hammond and
the homeowner for possession of cocaine, as the excerpted testimony immediately
follows a lengthy discussion of their rationale for doing so. Nothing else in the record
supports a reading to the contrary; Mr. Hammond did not testify, and the officers who
did—including Officer Gehring—were clear that Mr. Hammond refused to speak with
them consistent with his right to remain silent. No written statements to police or
physical evidence otherwise suggests that Mr. Hammond lacked the requisite guilty
knowledge in this case; to the contrary, officers testified that the inositol recovered at
the scene is “a commonly used cutting agent for fentanyl.” Without testimony or other
evidence suggesting that Officer Gehring had any indication as to Mr. Hammond’s
knowledge, Mr. Hammond’s preferred reading of Officer Gehring’s testimony lacks
any support in the record.
This absence of any evidence as to Mr. Hammond’s lack of knowledge of the
-8-
STATE V. HAMMOND
Opinion of the Court
substance’s identity renders it meaningfully distinct from the central case on which
Mr. Hammond relies. In that decision, State v. Coleman, we held that a defendant
was erroneously denied the requested guilty knowledge instruction, but only because
there was “substantive evidence” admitted at trial demonstrating he “did not know
the true identity of what he possessed.” 227 N.C. App. 354, 359, 742 S.E.2d 346, 350
(2013). As previously explained, no such evidence was admitted in this case.
Without evidence of Mr. Hammond’s lack of knowledge, the trial court was not
required to give the requested instruction because “[a] presumption that the
defendant has the required guilty knowledge exists in the event that the State makes
a prima facie showing that the defendant has committed a crime, such as trafficking
by possession, . . . that lacks a specific intent element.” Galaviz-Torres, 368 N.C. at
48, 772 S.E.2d at 437. See also State v. Parker, 277 N.C. App. 531, 860 S.E.2d 21, 36
(2021) (holding a defendant was not entitled to receive a guilty knowledge instruction
because it was not supported by the evidence); State v. Bagley, 183 N.C. App. 514,
524, 644 S.E.2d 615, 622 (2007) (“Jury instructions must be supported by the
evidence. Conversely, all essential issues arising from the evidence require jury
instruction.” (citations omitted)). We therefore hold Mr. Hammond has failed to
demonstrate error under this argument.
III. CONCLUSION
Mr. Hammond’s argument rests on the assertion that Officer Gehring’s
testimony created an issue of fact as to Mr. Hammond’s guilty knowledge. But Mr.
-9-
STATE V. HAMMOND
Opinion of the Court
Hammond’s reading of that testimony is not supported by the record, and no other
evidence demonstrates a lack of guilty knowledge on Mr. Hammond’s part. Under
such a circumstance, the trial court was not required to give a specific instruction on
guilty knowledge. Thus, while we allow Mr. Hammond’s petition for writ of certiorari
to reach his appeal on the merits, we ultimately hold that he has failed to
demonstrate error below.
NO ERROR.
Judges GORE and STADING concur.
- 10 -