Volume 160 — North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports

<bold>1. Appeal and Error — appealability — interlocutory order —</bold> <bold>partial summary judgment — duty of insurance company to</bold> <bold>defend — substantial right</bold> <block_quote> Although an order of partial summary judgment on the issue of whether an insurance company has a duty to defend in the underlying wrongful death action is an appeal from an interlocutory order, it affects a substantial right that might be lost absent immediate appeal.</block_quote> <bold>2. Insurance — aircraft accident — indemnification — summary</bold> <bold>judgment motion</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err in a wrongful death action arising out of an aircraft accident by denying plaintiff administratrix's motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether defendant insurance company had a duty to indemnify the pilot's estate and by denying defendant's motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that coverage did not exist under either of its two policies, because a genuine issue of material fact remained in regards to coverage for the pilot's estate when the pilot's status as an insured depended on whether the pilot was acting within the<page_number>Page 400</page_number> scope of his duties as an officer, director, or stockholder of the pertinent corporation or as an independent contractor.</block_quote>

<bold>Probation and Parole — revocation — after expiration of</bold> <bold>probation period</bold> <block_quote> A judgment was arrested where the court attempted to revoke defendant's probation after the probation period expired without findings or evidence of a reasonable effort to conduct the hearing earlier. N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>15A-1344</cross_reference>(f).</block_quote>

<bold>1. Evidence — actual money seized during arrest — drugs</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err in a possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine and misdemeanor possession of marijuana case by denying defendant's motion requesting that the State produce the actual money seized from defendant during his arrest, because: (1) N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>15-11.1</cross_reference>(a) permits the introduction of substitute evidence at trial as long as it does not prejudice defendant; (2) the absence of the actual bills neither inhibited the jury nor prejudiced defendant in this case when the jury got to see the whole picture by listening to the witnesses on each side; and (3) the jury considered the evidence that defendant claims would exonerate him regarding the money and rejected it.</block_quote> <bold>2. Drugs — possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine —</bold> <bold>motion to dismiss — sufficiency of evidence</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine at the close of all evidence, because: (1) the amount of cocaine found on defendant far exceeded the amount a typical user would possess for personal use; (2) the cocaine was packaged separately and an officer indicated that drug dealers often keep cocaine in individual packages so that it is readily available for sale; and (3) the drugs were found in close proximity to the money that was also seized.</block_quote>