Volume 145 — North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports

<bold>1. Evidence — SBI Lab Report — cocaine — motion in</bold> <bold>limine — notice</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err in a possession of cocaine with intent to sell and deliver and sale of cocaine case by denying defendant's motion in limine and allowing the State to introduce an SBI Lab Report regarding the chemical contents of the substance received from defendant into evidence without further authentication under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>90-95</cross_reference>(g), because: (1) defense counsel's admission that he had received a copy of the SBI Lab Report, coupled with the contentions of the State's attorney that defendant's former attorney had been sent notice of the State's intention to introduce the report into evidence without further authentication, are sufficient to support the factual finding that defendant received notice under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>90-95</cross_reference>(g); and (2) having received notice, defendant failed to notify the State at least five days prior to trial that defendant objected to introduction of the report into evidence.</block_quote> <bold>2. Drugs — possession of cocaine with intent to sell and deliver</bold> <bold>— sale of cocaine — motion to dismiss — sufficiency</bold> <bold>of evidence</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by denying defendant's motions to dismiss the charges of possession of cocaine with intent to sell<page_number>Page 336</page_number> and deliver and the sale of cocaine because the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the State shows that defendant exchanged cocaine for three sweatshirts and a video game.</block_quote> <bold>3. Drugs — sale of controlled substance — any transfer in</bold> <bold>exchange for consideration</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not commit plain error by instructing the jury that exchanging cocaine for clothing or video games would constitute a sale of a controlled substance under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>90-95</cross_reference>(a)(1), because the Legislature intended "sale" to encompass any transfer in exchange for consideration, and not just transfers of controlled substances for money.</block_quote>

<bold>Divorce — alimony — relative earnings and earning capacities</bold> <bold>— accustomed standard of living — established pattern of</bold> <bold>savings</bold> <block_quote> The trial court erred by denying plaintiff wife's claim for alimony under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>50-16.3A</cross_reference>(c) based on the fact that she was able to meet all of her monthly bills without the aid of alimony, because: (1) the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact regarding the relative earnings and earning capacities of the spouses; and (2) the trial court improperly felt it was unable to consider the parties' established pattern of savings in determining the standard of living to which the parties had grown accustomed during the marriage.</block_quote>