State v. Rowland, COA24-274, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Mar. 19, 2025)

In this Wake County case, defendant appealed his convictions including keeping or maintaining a dwelling for the keeping or selling of controlled substances, arguing error in denying his motion to dismiss the keeping or maintaining a dwelling charge. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding no error.

Raleigh Police received information that defendant was selling bundles of heroin from his residence and began investigating, resulting in a 2021 search warrant for the home that turned up heroin, firearms, and drug paraphernalia. The residence was owned by defendant’s parents, and in an interview with police defendant told them he had lived at the residence “on and off since 2005.” Slip Op. at 2. At trial, defendant moved to dismiss the charge, arguing the State did not demonstrate that the dwelling had been kept or maintained over time for the purpose of controlled substances, but the trial court denied the motion.

The Court of Appeals first noted that G.S. 90-108(a)(7) governed the crime in question, and “[w]hile mere occupancy of a property, without more, will not support the ‘keeping or maintaining’ element, ‘evidence of residency, standing alone, is sufficient to support the element of maintaining.’” Id. at 5 (quoting State v. Spencer, 192 N.C. App. 143, 148 (2008)). Additionally, residency can be established by defendant’s admission and through circumstantial evidence, both of which were present here. The court concluded that the admission defendant resided at his parents’ house along with the State’s circumstantial evidence defendant resided in the home represented substantial evidence defendant kept or maintained a dwelling for controlled substances.