{ "id": 4163687, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARLON DAMON CHARLES", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Charles", "decision_date": "2008-12-16", "docket_number": "No. COA08-601", "first_page": "500", "last_page": "508", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "194 N.C. App. 500" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "635 S.E.2d 429", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636787, 12636788 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/635/0429-01", "/se2d/635/0429-02" ] }, { "cite": "626 S.E.2d 747", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12635203 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "753" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/626/0747-01" ] }, { "cite": "343 S.E.2d 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "889" }, { "page": "889" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 87", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4777958 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "93-94" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0087-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 S.E.2d 297", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "300" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 N.C. App. 36", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520052 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "42" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/96/0036-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 575", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3792832, 3797154, 3794563, 3787078, 3793960, 3795539, 3793977 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0575-07", "/nc/360/0575-03", "/nc/360/0575-01", "/nc/360/0575-06", "/nc/360/0575-05", "/nc/360/0575-04", "/nc/360/0575-02" ] }, { "cite": "176 N.C. App. 497", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8301223 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "505" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/176/0497-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 L. Ed. 2d 150", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "531 U.S. 890", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9564641, 9565507, 9564931, 9565413, 9565127, 9565834, 9565727, 9565933, 9565644, 9565235, 9564441, 9564731, 9564539, 9564829, 9565023 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/531/0890-03", "/us/531/0890-11", "/us/531/0890-06", "/us/531/0890-10", "/us/531/0890-08", "/us/531/0890-14", "/us/531/0890-13", "/us/531/0890-15", "/us/531/0890-12", "/us/531/0890-09", "/us/531/0890-01", "/us/531/0890-04", "/us/531/0890-02", "/us/531/0890-05", "/us/531/0890-07" ] }, { "cite": "526 S.E.2d 451", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "455-56" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155599 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "379" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 L. Ed. 2d 404", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "537 U.S. 1006", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9287777, 9287908, 9288011, 9287756, 9287981, 9288046, 9287856, 9288081, 9287888, 9287955, 9287828, 9287801, 9287930, 9287871 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/537/1006-02", "/us/537/1006-08", "/us/537/1006-12", "/us/537/1006-01", "/us/537/1006-11", "/us/537/1006-13", "/us/537/1006-05", "/us/537/1006-14", "/us/537/1006-07", "/us/537/1006-10", "/us/537/1006-04", "/us/537/1006-03", "/us/537/1006-09", "/us/537/1006-06" ] }, { "cite": "561 S.E.2d 245", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "256", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 320", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 219909 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "336", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0320-01" ] }, { "cite": "506 S.E.2d 252", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 507", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659745, 1659908, 1659815, 1659924, 1659862 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0507-02", "/nc/348/0507-05", "/nc/348/0507-03", "/nc/348/0507-04", "/nc/348/0507-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 S.E.2d 232", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "237" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "343 N.C. 29", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 798779 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "36" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/343/0029-01" ] }, { "cite": "273 S.E.2d 699", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "703" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "302 N.C. 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564026 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "126" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/302/0122-01" ] }, { "cite": "472 S.E.2d 920", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "925" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 N.C. 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 867565 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "73" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/344/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E.2d 114", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "117" }, { "page": "117" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573434 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "98" }, { "page": "99" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "594 S.E.2d 125", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "129" }, { "page": "129" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "163 N.C. App. 512", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8919002 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "517-18" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/163/0512-01" ] }, { "cite": "488 S.E.2d 769", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "779" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "346 N.C. 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 139608 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "385" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/346/0365-01" ] }, { "cite": "518 S.E.2d 541", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "544", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Bishop, 346 N.C. 365, 385, 488 S.E.2d 769, 779 (1997)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "134 N.C. App. 685", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11147033 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "689", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Bishop, 346 N.C. 365, 385, 488 S.E.2d 769, 779 (1997)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/134/0685-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E.2d 375", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "378" }, { "page": "378-79" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 655", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565416 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "660" }, { "page": "661" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0655-01" ] }, { "cite": "294 S.E.2d 372", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 559", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572480, 8572462, 8572438, 8572537, 8572508 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0559-03", "/nc/306/0559-02", "/nc/306/0559-01", "/nc/306/0559-05", "/nc/306/0559-04" ] }, { "cite": "292 S.E.2d 163", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "167" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 N.C. App. 602", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525459 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "608" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/57/0602-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 S.E.2d 488", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "492" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 N.C. App. 302", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523552 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "306" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/65/0302-01" ] }, { "cite": "346 S.E.2d 488", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "494" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 545", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4774041 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "553" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0545-01" ] }, { "cite": "537 S.E.2d 490", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 598", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 132296, 132113, 132039, 132263 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0598-02", "/nc/350/0598-03", "/nc/350/0598-04", "/nc/350/0598-01" ] }, { "cite": "512 S.E.2d 428", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "433" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N.C. App. 453", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11238541 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "460" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/132/0453-01" ] }, { "cite": "287 S.E.2d 827", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "831" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 274", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567535 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "279" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0274-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(h)(l)" }, { "page": "(h)(l)" }, { "page": "(h)(1)(a)", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "(h)(l)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 839, "char_count": 18175, "ocr_confidence": 0.711, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1359042554218412 }, "sha256": "3d95b554083f5bab92f3831f16e1ecd07ecc38cd33d1342fafe5a38ab0e8bfa9", "simhash": "1:87216d36d4172058", "word_count": 2998 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:50:43.594733+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges TYSON and CALABRIA concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARLON DAMON CHARLES" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McCullough, judge.\nOn 2 November 2007, a jury convicted Marlon Damon Charles (\u201cdefendant\u201d) on six charges of trafficking in marijuana: by sale, by delivery, and by possession. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) entering judgment on convictions which were the product of ambiguous jury verdicts, (2) denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss, and (3) admitting a paper writing into evidence over defendant\u2019s objection. After careful review of the record, we find no prejudicial error.\nI. Background\nOn 3 April 2007, defendant was indicted on two charges of trafficking in marijuana by sale, two charges of trafficking in marijuana by delivery, and two charges of trafficking in marijuana by possession. The charges were related to transactions that occurred on 29 January 2007 and 9 February 2007. All of the indictments alleged that the amount of marijuana involved was \u201c10 pounds or more but less than 50 pounds[.]\u201d The case was tried before a jury at the 29 October 2007 Criminal Session of Wake County Superior Court, before the Honorable R. Allen Baddour, Jr.\nThe State\u2019s evidence at trial tended to show the following: Frederico \u201cFred\u201d Johnson (\u201cJohnson\u201d) began working as a paid police informant in April of 2006 after he was charged with trafficking in cocaine. Johnson first met defendant in 2005, when Johnson was involved in selling marijuana. Johnson bought marijuana from defendant on numerous occasions, generally in. amounts weighing 10 to 20 pounds. After Johnson\u2019s arrest in 2006, he continued to purchase marijuana from defendant and agreed to cooperate with the police in providing information about drug transactions.\nOn 18 January 2007, Johnson met with Agent Jeffrey Morales of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (\u201cSBI\u201d). Johnson told Agent Morales that defendant, whom he knew as \u201cLion,\u201d was trafficking marijuana and had directed the delivery of some packages containing marijuana. Based on this information, Agent Morales contacted Special Agent Kathy O\u2019Brien and started an investigation.\nUnder supervision of the SBI, Johnson engaged in a series of controlled buys with defendant. At defendant\u2019s trial, Johnson testified about his dealings with defendant in January and February of 2007. Before each meeting with defendant, the SBI provided Johnson with money to purchase marijuana, conducted a search of Johnson, and installed a recording device on his person.\nJohnson met with defendant on 29 January 2007 at 5512 Wood Pond Court in Raleigh, North Carolina, the residence of defendant\u2019s girlfriend, Sasha Fox (\u201cFox\u2019s house\u201d). Special Agent O\u2019Brien testified that the SBI was unable to view Johnson entering and departing from Fox\u2019s house and could only hear small portions of Johnson\u2019s conversation with defendant over the monitor. Johnson paid defendant $2,000.00 to satisfy a prior debt, and defendant gave Johnson a packaged box containing what Johnson believed to be 12 pounds of marijuana. After this exchange, Johnson returned to the SBI lab, where the SBI took possession of the box arid submitted the contents for testing. A forensic drug chemist from the City County Bureau of Investigation (CCBI) testified that she had determined the contents of the box to be marijuana in an amount weighing 11 pounds.\nJohnson returned to Fox\u2019s house on 7 February 2007 to meet with defendant a second time. During this meeting, Johnson gave defendant $9,000.00 to pay for the 29 January 2007 transaction. After waiting at Fox\u2019s house for a few hours, Johnson and defendant drove to a few other locations, but were unable to obtain any marijuana. The SBI was unable to hear any .of the conversations over the monitor between Johnson and defendant.\nJohnson met defendant for a third time at Fox\u2019s house on 9 February 2007. The SBI observed Johnson entering and leaving Fox\u2019s house. After Johnson entered the house, defendant went into a bedroom and returned with a Christmas tree box and a Pampers box, which Johnson believed to contain 16 pounds of marijuana. A forensic drug chemist from the CCBI testified that the two packages collectively contained 13 pounds of marijuana.\nOn 16 February 2007, the SBI obtained search warrants for Fox\u2019s house as well as defendant\u2019s residence at 5605 Cilantro Drive in Raleigh. The SBI seized about $8,000.00 in cash from defendant\u2019s residence and approximately three pounds of marijuana from Fox\u2019s house. At Fox\u2019s house, the SBI also found a piece of paper with the notation, \u201cFred 12\u201d written on it.\nThe CCBI examined fingerprints lifted from the various items of packaging involved in the drug transactions between defendant and Johnson. An evidence technician from CCBI identified three of the prints as belonging to defendant and one of the prints as belonging to Johnson.\nAt the close of the State\u2019s evidence, defendant moved to dismiss all charges for insufficiency of evidence, which the trial court denied. Defendant renewed his motion to dismiss, which was also denied by the trial court.\nOn 2 November 2007, the jury returned unanimous verdicts of guilty on all six charges. The trial court entered judgment and sentenced defendant to a term of 25 to 30 months\u2019 imprisonment and imposed fines in the amount of $13,000.00. Defendant gave notice of appeal in court on 2 November 2007.\nII. Jury Instructions\nDefendant assigns error to all of his trafficking in marijuana convictions under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(h)(l), arguing that due to the overly broad jury instructions, his convictions were the product of ambiguous jury verdicts. We disagree.\nOur State Constitution provides that \u201c[n]o person shall be convicted of any crime but by the unanimous verdict of a jury in open court.\u201d N.C. Const. Art. I, \u00a7 24. \u201cTo convict a defendant, the jurors must unanimously agree that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt each and every essential element of the crime charged.\u201d State v. Jordan, 305 N.C. 274, 279, 287 S.E.2d 827, 831 (1982). \u201cIf the trial court instructs a jury that it may find the defendant guilty of the crime charged on either of two alternative grounds, some jurors may find the defendant guilty of the crime charged on one ground, while other jurors may find the defendant guilty on another ground.\u201d State v. Petty, 132 N.C. App. 453, 460, 512 S.E.2d 428, 433, appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 350 N.C. 598, 537 S.E.2d 490 (1999).\n\u201cSubmission of an issue to the jury in the disjunctive is reversible error if it renders the issue ambiguous and thereby prevents the jury from reaching a unanimous verdict.\u201d State v. Diaz, 317 N.C. 545, 553, 346 S.E.2d 488, 494 (1986).\nDefendant was convicted of six counts of trafficking in marijuana by possession, sale, and delivery, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(h)(l), which reads:\nAny person who sells, manufactures, delivers, transports, or possesses in excess of 10 pounds (avoirdupois) of marijuana shall be guilty of a felony which felony shall be known as \u201ctrafficking in marijuana\u201d and if the quantity of such substance involved:\na. Is in excess of 10 pounds, but less than 50 pounds, such person shall be punished as a Class H felon and shall be sentenced to a minimum term of 25 months and a maximum term of 30 months in the .State\u2019s prison and shall be fined not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000).\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(h)(1)(a) (2007) (emphasis added). \u201cWeight of the marijuana is an essential element of trafficking in marijuana under G.S. [\u00a7] 90-95(h).\u201d State v. Goforth, 65 N.C. App. 302, 306, 309 S.E.2d 488, 492 (1983). \u201cThe weight element upon a charge of trafficking in marijuana becomes more critical if the State\u2019s evidence of the weight approaches the minimum weight charged.\u201d State v. Anderson, 57 N.C. App. 602, 608, 292 S.E.2d 163, 167, disc. review denied, 306 N.C. 559, 294 S.E.2d 372 (1982).\nIn this case, the trial court deviated from the language used in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(h)(l) to describe the weight element of trafficking in marijuana. Specifically, the trial court instructed the jury that it should find defendant guilty if it found that defendant sold \u201cbetween ten and fifty pounds\u201d of marijuana. Defendant claims these erroneous instructions permitted the jury to find him guilty if it found the weight of the marijuana to be exactly 10 pounds, which does not qualify as a trafficking offense under the statute.\nBecause defendant did not object to this aspect of the jury instructions at trial, the challenged instructions are reviewable only for plain error. See N.C. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660, 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983). The plain error rule is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case. Id. Under this standard, defendant has the burden of showing \u201c \u2018(i) that a different result probably would have been reached but for the error or (ii) that the error was so fundamental as to result in a miscarriage of justice or denial of a fair trial.\u2019 \u201d State v. Stanfield, 134 N.C. App. 685, 689, 518 S.E.2d 541, 544 (1999) (quoting State v. Bishop, 346 N.C. 365, 385, 488 S.E.2d 769, 779 (1997)). In deciding whether a defect in the jury instructions constitutes plain error, we must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury\u2019s finding of guilt. Odom, 307 N.C. at 661, 300 S.E.2d at 378-79.\nDefendant relies on our decision in State v. Trejo, 163 N.C. App. 512, 594 S.E.2d 125 (2004), in support of his argument. In Trejo, the trial court instructed the jury that if it found that the defendant possessed \u201cten pounds or more but less than fifty pounds\u201d of marijuana, it should find him guilty of trafficking in marijuana. Trejo, 163 N.C. App. at 517-18, 594 S.E.2d at 129. The State provided evidence that the box of marijuana transported by the defendant weighed 18 pounds, while the defendant testified that the box only weighed 6 or 7 pounds. Id. at 518, 594 S.E.2d at 129. Because the evidence in Trejo could have supported an inference that the defendant possessed exactly ten pounds of marijuana, we reversed his convictions. Id.\nContrary to the facts in Trejo, there was not any evidence presented at defendant\u2019s trial which would support an inference that defendant sold, delivered, or possessed exactly 10 pounds of marijuana. Here, the State provided evidence that weight of the marijuana involved in Johnson\u2019s transactions with defendant was 11 pounds and 13 pounds. Defendant did not contradict this evidence, nor did he offer any evidence regarding the weight of the marijuana involved. The jury was not presented with any evidence that the weight of marijuana involved was exactly 10 pounds, and therefore, it is not probably that the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury\u2019s verdicts. Thus, defendant has failed to show any plain error in the instructions to the jury.\nIII. Motion to Dismiss\nDefendant also appeals the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion to dismiss. Defendant moved to dismiss all charges at the close of the State\u2019s evidence and again at the close of all evidence, both of which were denied. Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of trafficking in marijuana by possession, sale, and delivery. We find no error.\nThe standard of review for a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence is whether there is substantial evidence of each element of the offense charged and that the defendant is the perpetrator of such offense. State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 98, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980). \u201cSubstantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept \u00e1s adequate to support a conclusion.\u201d State v. Crawford, 344 N.C. 65, 73, 472 S.E.2d 920, 925 (1996). The reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State every reasonable inference arising from the evidence. Powell, 299 N.C. at 99, 261 S.E.2d at 117.\n\u201c[T]he rule for determining the sufficiency of evidence is the same whether the evidence is completely circumstantial, completely direct, or both.\u201d State v. Wright, 302 N.C. 122, 126, 273 S.E.2d 699, 703 (1981). Any contradictions or discrepancies arising from the evidence are for the jury to resolve and do not warrant dismissal. State v. King, 343 N.C. 29, 36, 468 S.E.2d 232, 237 (1996), cert. allowed in part, 348 N.C. 507, 506 S.E.2d 252 (1998).\nIn the present case, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, tends to show the following: On 29 January 2007, Johnson gave defendant $2,000.00 and received 11 pounds of marijuana from him. Johnson paid defendant $9,000.00 in exchange for two boxes containing 13 pounds of marijuana, which he received on 9 February 2007. A latent print examiner from the CCBI determined that three fingerprints on the boxes of marijuana were made by defendant. Based on the above-mentioned evidence, we conclude that the trial court was presented with sufficient evidence to satisfy all elements for each of defendant\u2019s convictions.\nDefendant claims that the above-mentioned evidence is insufficient because it is solely based on the uncorroborated testimony of Johnson. Defendant contends that Johnson was a \u201cwitness of questionable reliability\u201d due to his prior drug convictions, his belief that his testimony would get his sentence reduced for cooperating with law enforcement, and the fact that he was being paid by law enforcement for his participation in undercover drug transactions.\nDefendant\u2019s arguments are misplaced in that the arguments do not concern the sufficiency of evidence but instead relate to the credibility of Johnson. On a motion to dismiss, it is not the duty of the trial court to weigh the evidence or determine any witness\u2019 credibility. State v. Robinson, 355 N.C. 320, 336, 561 S.E.2d 245, 256, cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1006, 154 L. Ed. 2d 404 (2002) (citation omitted). \u201cWhen ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court should be concerned only about whether the evidence is sufficient for jury consideration, not about the weight of the evidence.\u201d State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 379, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455-56, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 890, 148 L. Ed. 2d 150 (2000). We conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to survive defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss and therefore find no error.\nIV. Admission of Evidence\nDefendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting State\u2019s Exhibit No. 1 (\u201cExhibit 1\u201d) into evidence. Exhibit 1 was apiece of paper containing the notation \u201cFred 12\u201d that the police found at Fox\u2019s house, pursuant to a search warrant. During trial, the State moved to introduce Exhibit 1 to corroborate the testimony of Johnson, who goes by the name \u201cFred,\u201d that he purchased 12 pounds of marijuana from defendant on 29 January 2007. Defendant\u2019s objections were overruled.\nThe trial court\u2019s decision to exclude or admit evidence is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Brown v. City of Winston-Salem, 176 N.C. App. 497, 505, 626 S.E.2d 747, 753 (citations omitted), cert. denied, 360 N.C. 575, 635 S.E.2d 429 (2006). Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting Exhibit 1 because it was not properly authenticated, irrelevant, and prejudicial. These arguments have no merit.\nIrrelevant evidence is harmless unless the defendant shows that he was so prejudiced by the erroneous admission that a different result would have ensued if the evidence had been excluded. State v. Harper, 96 N.C. App. 36, 42, 384 S.E.2d 297, 300 (1989). Defendant has not met this burden. Furthermore, defendant\u2019s claim that Exhibit 1 was not admissible because it was prejudicial has no merit. It is assumed that evidence which is probative in the State\u2019s case will have a prejudicial effect on a defendant; the question, then, is one of degree. State v. Mercer, 317 N.C. 87, 93-94, 343 S.E.2d 885, 889 (1986). Relevant evidence is properly admissible unless the court determines that it must be excluded, for instance, because of the risk of unfair prejudice. Id. at 94, 343 S.E.2d at 889. Defendant has failed to show unfair prejudice. Thus, we overrule this assignment of error.\nV. Conclusion\nFor the above-mentioned reasons, we find no error warranting the reversal of defendant\u2019s convictions.\nNo error.\nJudges TYSON and CALABRIA concur.\n. We do not reach the merits of this argument and dismiss because it does correspond with the assignments of error set out in the record on appeal. See N.C. R. App. P. 10(a) (stating that \u201cthe scope of review on appeal is confined to consideration of those assignments of error set out in the record on appeal\u201d).", "type": "majority", "author": "McCullough, judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General James M. Stanley Jr., for the State.", "Kimberly R Hoppinfor defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARLON DAMON CHARLES\nNo. COA08-601\n(Filed 16 December 2008)\n1. Drugs\u2014 trafficking \u2014 erroneous instructions on weight\u2014 not plain error\nErroneous jury instructions on trafficking in marijuana did not constitute plain error where the jury was instructed that it should find defendant guilty if he sold between ten and fifty pounds (rather than in excess of ten pounds but less that fifty pounds), but the evidence was that the marijuana involved in the transactions weighed eleven pounds and thirteen pounds.\n2. Drugs\u2014 sufficiency of evidence \u2014 distinct from credibility\nIt is not the duty of the trial court to weigh the evidence or determine credibility on a motion to dismiss, and the trial court here correctly denied defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss a prosecution for marijuana trafficking.\n3. Evidence\u2014 irrelevant \u2014 prejudice not shown\nThe trial court did not err in a prosecution for trafficking in marijuana by admitting a piece of paper found in a search of defendant\u2019s girlfriend\u2019s house as being corroborative of the State\u2019s informant. Defendant argued that the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial, but defendant did not show unfair prejudice. Irrelevant evidence is harmless unless the defendant shows that a different result would have ensued otherwise, which defendant did not do.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 2 November 2007 by Judge R. Allen Baddour, Jr., in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 October 2008.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General James M. Stanley Jr., for the State.\nKimberly R Hoppinfor defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0500-01", "first_page_order": 532, "last_page_order": 540 }