defendant lost his hearsay objection to a detective's testimony about what an informant said concerning defendant's use of his vehicles in his drug-related business when the detective later offered the same testimony without objection
How later courts described this case
- defendant lost his hearsay objection to a detective's testimony about what an informant said concerning defendant's use of his vehicles in his drug-related business when the detective later offered the same testimony without objection
- interpreting N.C. Gen.Stat. 90-97
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GREENE, Judge,
dissenting.
I do not agree a federal conviction of a drug offense can constitute a “violation” of Chapter 90, Article 5, the “North Carolina Controlled Substances Act.” Thus, as the trial court was without authority to enter an order of forfeiture of defendant’s property, I dissent.
Any property “subject to forfeiture” under the provisions of section 90-112(a) may be seized by law-enforcement officers “upon process issued by any district or superior court having jurisdiction over the property.” N.C.G.S. § 90-112(b) (1999). The property subject to seizure, however, can be forfeited only upon an order issued by the trial court, N.C.G.S. § 90-112(c) (1999), and only after there has been a felony criminal conviction of either the owner or the possessor of the property used in connection with a violation of Chapter 90, Article 5, State v. Johnson, 124 N.C. App. 462, 476 , 478 S.E.2d 16, 25 (1996), cert. denied, 345 N.C. 758 , 485 S.E.2d 304 (1997); N.C.G.S. *695 § 90-112(a)(4)c (1999) (violation must be a felony under Chapter 90, Article 5); N.C.G.S. § 90-112(a) (1999) (items used or possessed “in violation of the provisions” of Chapter 90, Article 5); N.C.G.S. § 90-112(f) (1999) (forfeiture of conveyances must be in accord with section 18B-504); N.C.G.S. § 18B-504(e) (1999) (procedures for disposition of seized property after criminal trial). A conviction of a “nearly identical” federal drug offense is simply not a conviction of an offense enumerated in Chapter 90, Article 5 of the North Carolina General Statutes.
In this case, defendant was not convicted of any drug offense under state law. Indeed, the criminal charges against defendant were dismissed by the State. The order of forfeiture, therefore, must be reversed.