## Facts

- Postal inspectors intercepted a parcel in Indianapolis that field-tested positive for methamphetamine and sent it under seal to a postal inspector in North Carolina.
- The parcel was addressed to “David Pool” at “107 Squire Ridge Lane” in North Carolina; investigators concluded the name and address likely reflected misspellings connected to David Paul Shelman and “Squirrel Ridge.”
- Investigators confirmed the parcel contained a controlled substance, resealed it, and attached a tamper-alert device to support a controlled delivery.
- A postal inspector delivered the parcel to the residence; Shelman’s sister stated the addressee was likely Shelman and signed for the package.
- Officers conducted surveillance. Hours later, Shelman arrived at the residence in a car driven by Cesar Rivera, went inside briefly, then left carrying the parcel.
- Shelman entered Rivera’s car with the parcel; the tamper-alert activated shortly after they drove away.
- Police stopped the vehicle, found the parcel on the floorboard between Shelman’s feet, and arrested him.
- After Miranda warnings and waiver, Shelman made statements indicating recent meth use, awareness that Rivera trafficked meth, and knowledge tied to Rivera’s prior package-related law-enforcement problems.
- A forensic chemist later tested the contents and determined the methamphetamine weighed far more than the 28-gram trafficking threshold (about 1,700 grams).
- Rivera pleaded guilty and received a lesser sentence than Shelman, which Shelman later used to challenge proportionality.

## Issues

1. Whether the methamphetamine parcel was inadmissible due to an insufficient chain of custody.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Shelman knowingly possessed and transported at least 28 grams of methamphetamine.
3. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting Shelman’s Batson challenge for failure to make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination.
4. Whether instructing the jury on “confessions” was reversible error where Shelman’s statement did not admit all elements of trafficking.
5. Whether the mandatory minimum trafficking sentence imposed on Shelman was unconstitutionally disproportionate, including in comparison to Rivera’s lesser sentence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for trafficking in methamphetamine by possession and by transportation and affirmed the sentence.
- The court held the State established a sufficient chain of custody; any minor discrepancies went to weight, not admissibility.
- The court held the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find Shelman knowingly possessed and transported a trafficking quantity.
- The court held Shelman failed to establish a prima facie Batson violation, so no further Batson analysis was required.
- The court held any error in characterizing Shelman’s statement as a “confession” in the instruction was not prejudicial.
- The court held the statutory minimum trafficking sentence was not cruel or unusual punishment and was not unconstitutional merely because a co-participant received a lesser sentence after a plea.

## Legal Principles

- Physical evidence is admissible if the State shows a reasonable probability the item has not been altered in material respects; minor gaps typically affect weight rather than admissibility.
- On sufficiency review, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State; contradictions are for the jury.
- Trafficking convictions may rest on circumstantial evidence of control and incriminating admissions, together with forensic proof that the quantity meets the statutory threshold; lack of knowledge of the exact weight does not defeat liability where knowing participation and trafficking quantity are shown.
- Under Batson, the defendant bears the initial burden to make a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination; absent that showing, the court need not require race-neutral explanations.
- A confession-style instruction is not reversible when it leaves credibility and weight to the jury and the jury is correctly instructed on the offense elements.
- Mandatory minimum drug-trafficking sentences are generally upheld against proportionality challenges; sentencing disparities between co-defendants may be justified by plea agreements and cooperation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Shelman’s methamphetamine trafficking convictions and mandatory minimum sentence, finding reliable evidence handling, sufficient proof of knowing possession and transportation of a trafficking amount, no prima facie Batson showing, no prejudicial jury-instruction error, and no unconstitutional disproportionality in punishment.


State v. Shelman, 584 S.E.2d 88 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)