and is not too remote in time; and (3) the conduct in question did not result in a conviction-, and (4) the inquiry into the conduct takes place during cross-examination. Morgan, 315 N.C. at 634, 340 S.E.2d at 89-90 (emphasis in original). When determining admissibility “[t]he focus ... is upon whether the conduct sought to be inquired into is of the type which is indicative of the actor’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.” Id. at 634-635, 340 S.E.2d at 90. Consequently, drug use is generally considered irrelevant. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 340 S.E.2d 84; see also Rowland, 89 N.C. App. 372, 366 S.E.2d 550 (stating that, standing alone, evidence of drug addiction is not probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness); State v. Clark, 324 N.C. 146, 167, 377 S.E.2d 54, 67 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Here, the prosecutor questioned defendant
holding defendants positive urinalysis test for marijuana use was sufficient to support revocation of defendants probation holding that limitation on scope and breadth of crossexamination did not significantly curtail effectiveness of witness crossexamination because crossexamination was lengthy and extensive holding that the state failed to prove that a hotel visitor had control over marijuana found in plain view in a hotel room because the state did not provide any evidence other than the defendants mere proximity to the marijuana recognizing that criminal defendants right to testify is subject to crossexamination holding that question during crossexamination about defendants use of marijuana had no conceivable tendency to prove or disprove her truthfulness