The North Carolina Court of Appeals has upheld the convictions of Cole McKay Parris for drug trafficking and possession of controlled substances. The court ruled that sufficient evidence supported the jury's decision, which found Parris guilty of possessing methamphetamine with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver, as well as trafficking methamphetamine by possessing 400 grams or more. This ruling has significant implications for drug-related offenses in the state.

The case, officially titled State of North Carolina v. Cole McKay Parris, was decided on November 4, 2026, under docket number 25-1142. Parris was sentenced to a lengthy prison term following a jury trial that took place in September 2024. The court's decision highlights the importance of evidence in drug possession cases and clarifies the standards for establishing constructive possession.

Background

The dispute in this case arose after Parris was indicted on multiple drug-related charges in October 2023. Initially, he faced charges for trafficking in opium or heroin, possession with intent to manufacture or sell heroin, and several counts related to methamphetamine and marijuana. However, during the trial, the State dismissed the heroin-related charges, focusing instead on the methamphetamine and marijuana counts.

The Randolph County Sheriff’s Office (RCSO) conducted controlled drug buys at an address known to be occupied by Parris and his girlfriend. Following these buys, RCSO began surveillance of the premises. On September 2, 2022, a visit by the Probation and Parole Department confirmed Parris was residing there. Four days later, RCSO observed Parris leaving the premises with two other individuals, leading to a traffic stop and subsequent search warrant execution at the residence.

During the search, officers discovered a significant amount of methamphetamine, marijuana, and various incriminating items, including a digital scale, a ledger with customer names, and photographs on Parris's cellphone that linked him to the drugs found in the house. Despite the evidence, Parris argued that the State failed to prove he had exclusive control over the premises or the drugs.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Jeff Carpenter, reviewed the trial court's decision to deny Parris's motion to dismiss the charges due to insufficient evidence. The court concluded that the State had provided substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict. Judge Carpenter noted, "the State presented substantial evidence that Defendant maintained the premises as a residence, or had some apparent proprietary interest in the premises or the contraband."

The court emphasized that constructive possession of contraband can be established even without actual possession if the evidence shows intent and capability to control the items. The court considered various factors, including Parris's ownership of the premises, his proximity to the contraband, and incriminating evidence found during the investigation.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the evidence presented at trial supported a reasonable inference of Parris's guilt, affirming the trial court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss. The judges Collins and Flood concurred with the opinion.

Impact

This ruling reinforces the legal standards for establishing constructive possession in drug cases in North Carolina. It clarifies that a defendant does not need to have exclusive control over a property to be convicted of drug trafficking or possession. Instead, the totality of the circumstances can be sufficient for a jury to find guilt.

The decision may have broader implications for future drug-related prosecutions in North Carolina, as it sets a precedent for how courts evaluate evidence of possession and control in similar cases. Defendants may find it more challenging to argue against possession charges if the State can present a combination of circumstantial evidence linking them to the contraband.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Parris plans to appeal the decision further. However, given the nature of the case and the substantial evidence presented, it is likely that any appeal would face significant challenges.