
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BRICE CHRISTOPHER CHURCH and BARBARA LOUISE WHITEHEAD CHURCH
    No. 7725SC282
    (Filed 7 September 1977)
    Criminal Law § 75.10— statement by defendant — waiver of right to remain silent
    In a prosecution for felonious possession of marijuana the trial court properly allowed the State to offer evidence of statements made by the male defendant where the evidence showed that he waived his right to remain silent and later stated that he would not answer questions about where marijuana in his possession came from; and defendant’s assertion of his right to remain silent on that subject was honored by the interrogators.
    APPEAL by defendants from Thornburg, Judge. Judgments entered 13 October 1976 in Superior Court, BURKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 August 1977.
    Defendants were convicted of felonious possession of marijuana and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
    
      Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Leigh Emerson Roman, for the State.
    
    
      Triggs & Hodges, by C. Gary Triggs, for the defendants.
    
   BROCK, Chief Judge.

This appeal presents the question of whether the trial judge committed prejudicial error in allowing the State to offer evidence of statements made by defendant Brice Christopher Church.

Pursuant to a search warrant, officers searched defendants’ house and found 371 grams of marijuana. The marijuana was impounded and defendants were arrested. After defendants were transported to the sheriff’s office they were given the Miranda warnings and defendant Brice Church waived his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. During interrogation of defendant Brice Church he stated that he would not answer questions about where the marijuana came from. Thereafter no questions were asked concerning where the marijuana came from. However, the interrogation continued on other phases of the investigation.

From competent evidence the trial judge found facts approximately as above set out and concluded that evidence of statements made by Brice Church was admissible. Thereafter the State was permitted to offer evidence that Brice Church stated that “he was not going to sell a lot of stems and junk, that only the good stuff was going to go into the bags.” Also the State was permitted to offer evidence that Brice Church stated that “Simon Price was a friend of theirs and that he was just visiting the house that night” and that the marijuana “was not Simon Price’s.”

We see no error in the admission of Brice Church’s statements. He waived his right to remain silent and later stated that he would not answer questions about where the marijuana came from. No further questions were asked about where it came from. Defendant’s assertion of his right to remain silent on that subject was honored by the interrogators.

No error.

Judges BRITT and MORRIS concur.  