I have been covering developments around the legalization of hemp in North Carolina since 2018. Never did I suspect then that I would still be working on the topic all this time later, but here we are. My last post on In Re: J.B.P. covered the then most recent developments around probable cause and the odor of cannabis. That opinion was withdrawn and has yet to reissue, but subsequent cases have basically affirmed the logic on which the case was decided. This month, the Court of Appeals released State v. Ruffin, COA24-276, ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 5, 2025), weighing in on evidentiary challenges to opinion evidence identifying a substance as marijuana, as well as on jury instructions for marijuana cases. This post examines these and other recent legal developments impacting the state’s criminal cannabis law. Read on for the details.
drug identification
Court of Appeals Holds Sight or Odor of Cannabis = Probable Cause
Author’s Note: The Court of Appeals withdrew the decision on which this post is based on August 30, 2024.
The Court of Appeals recently settled an issue that has been unresolved in the state for several years: In light of legal hemp, does the sight or odor of cannabis still provide probable cause to justify a search or arrest? Hemp and marijuana—both varieties of the cannabis plant—are indistinguishable by sight or smell. Since State v. Parker, 277 N.C. App. 531 (2021), the Court of Appeals has wrestled with the issue. Parker and subsequent cases repeatedly declined to decide the question, holding instead that officers had probable cause under the facts of each case based on the officer’s observation of suspected marijuana “plus” additional incriminating circumstances. Some trial courts had sometimes granted motions to suppress when the probable cause was based solely or primarily on the odor or sight of cannabis. See, e.g., State v. Springs, 292 N.C. App. 207 (2024) (reversing the trial court’s grant of motion to suppress). It seems we finally have an answer. According to In Re: J.B.P., No. COA23-269, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Aug. 6, 2024), the sight or smell of cannabis, standing alone, provides an officer with probable cause to believe marijuana may be found, just as it did before the advent of legal hemp. This post discusses the implications of the J.B.P. case and offers thoughts on defending marijuana prosecutions in its wake. Read on for the details.
Spring 2024 Cannabis Update (Part II)
In Part I of my Spring 2024 cannabis update, I discussed the search and seizure issues arising in North Carolina courts around cannabis. Part II explores drug identification evidence issues surrounding marijuana prosecutions and examines potential challenges defenders might raise. This post will also cover recent developments on the state, federal, and tribal levels impacting cannabis.
Fall 2022 Cannabis Update
It has not been long since my last cannabis update, but there are some interesting new developments to report, most notably on drug identification and marijuana. Read on for the details.
Summer 2020 Hemp Update
On Thursday, June 4, 2020, the North Carolina General Assembly passed S.B. 315, referred to as the State Farm Bill, which was subsequently signed into law by the Governor. The bill was pending all last session and stalled, allegedly over a dispute about how to treat smokable hemp. As I understand it, the bill originally intended to clarify that hemp in all forms (including smokable hemp) was legal (here is an earlier version of the bill taking that approach). After hearing objections from law enforcement and prosecutors (as detailed in the SBI memo on the subject), the proposed bill was changed to ban smokable hemp and regulate the rest of the hemp industry in a variety of ways. When the bill was last being discussed in the news, the dispute at the General Assembly had apparently narrowed to when the smokable hemp ban was to kick in. But, the bill never passed last session, and we were without a Farm Bill until this month. So, what big changes does the bill have in store for hemp in North Carolina?
Sufficiency vs. Admissibility: Drug I.D. after State v. Osborne
In August, the North Carolina Supreme Court weighed in on drug identification once again in State v. Osborne, ___ N.C. ___ (August 16, 2019). I wrote about the earlier Court of Appeals decision in the case, here. The new Osborne decision clarifies the application of drug identification rules as well as sufficiency of the evidence in this context.
State v. Osborne: Another Wrinkle in Drug ID
Back in February, I blogged about State v. Bridges, ___ N.C. App. ___, 810 S.E.2d 365 (Feb. 6, 2018), and drug identification. In short, Bridges held that the defendant’s out-of-court admission to an officer that a substance was “meth” was sufficient to meet the State’s burden of proving the identity of the substance, at least where the defendant failed to object to the testimony. This decision arguably signified an expansion of the Nabors exception to the Ward rule that a chemical analysis is generally required to establish drug identity (subject to other exceptions covered in the post). For a more thorough review of the topic, see that previous post. The Court of Appeals recently decided another drug ID case, State v. Osborne, ___ N.C. App. ___ (October 2, 2018), adding a new wrinkle to the rules.
Think You Know Drug ID?
A considerable amount of digital ink has been expended on this blog discussing the rules for identifying drugs at trial and related issues, although it has been several years since we covered it. It’s an important and potentially dispositive issue in drug trials. Consider the following fact pattern:
The defendant is charged with possession of methamphetamine. During her arrest and processing, she tells the officer that she has “meth” on her person, which is seized by the officers. At trial, the officer testifies to her statement about the nature of the substance, and the alleged meth is itself introduced at trial. However, no chemical analysis is introduced, nor is there any expert testimony about the substance, and the defendant presents no evidence. At the close of the State’s evidence, the defendant moves to dismiss, arguing that the State failed to provide sufficient proof of the identity of the alleged drugs. Should the motion be allowed? Read on for the answer.