State v. Chekanow
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BEASLEY, Justice.
**488 In this appeal we consider whether evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to find defendants were aware of, and exercised control over, the twenty-two marijuana plants found growing on their property. The Court of Appeals concluded that defendants did not have exclusive possession of the portion of the property where the plants were found, and therefore, the State was required to show evidence of other incriminating circumstances to survive defendants' motion to dismiss. Because the Court of Appeals held the State failed to show other incriminating **489 circumstances…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- State v. FritschSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
- State v. RoseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1994
- State v. HarveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- State v. MeltonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2018
- State v. MadduxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2018
- State v. ChevallierCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2019
- State v. AltmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2019
- State v. BarbourCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2026
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.