{ "id": 4178298, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RENNY DEANJELO MOBLEY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Mobley", "decision_date": "2010-08-03", "docket_number": "No. COA09-975", "first_page": "285", "last_page": "293", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "206 N.C. App. 285" } ], "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": "632 S.E.2d 496", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636314, 12636315 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/632/0496-01", "/se2d/632/0496-02" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-87", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 9, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(6)(b)" }, { "page": "(6)(b)" }, { "page": "(6)" }, { "page": "(6)(b)" }, { "page": "(6)(b)" }, { "page": "(6)(b)(l)" }, { "page": "(6)", "parenthetical": "b" }, { "page": "(6)(b)(3)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "590 S.E.2d 396", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 659", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491840, 491395, 491688, 491497, 491628, 491699, 491896, 491423 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0659-05", "/nc/357/0659-07", "/nc/357/0659-02", "/nc/357/0659-08", "/nc/357/0659-03", "/nc/357/0659-06", "/nc/357/0659-01", "/nc/357/0659-04" ] }, { "cite": "586 S.E.2d 271", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 464", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491682, 491874, 491440, 491409, 491606, 491419, 491612, 491615 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0464-02", "/nc/357/0464-04", "/nc/357/0464-03", "/nc/357/0464-05", "/nc/357/0464-07", "/nc/357/0464-08", "/nc/357/0464-01", "/nc/357/0464-06" ] }, { "cite": "527 S.E.2d 523", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "531" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N.C. App. 307", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9250038 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "319" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/155/0307-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(2)" }, { "page": "(a)(2)" }, { "page": "(a)(2)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 L. Ed. 2d 162", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "535 U.S. 1114", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 354625, 353731, 354760, 353448, 352172, 354576, 355188, 353749, 351828, 354680, 354745, 352827, 353947, 354297 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/535/1114-11", "/us/535/1114-05", "/us/535/1114-06", "/us/535/1114-02", "/us/535/1114-09", "/us/535/1114-03", "/us/535/1114-10", "/us/535/1114-08", "/us/535/1114-07", "/us/535/1114-13", "/us/535/1114-04", "/us/535/1114-14", "/us/535/1114-12", "/us/535/1114-01" ] }, { "cite": "553 S.E.2d 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "894" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "354 N.C. 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 138504 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "278" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/354/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "461 S.E.2d 655", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "663" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 N.C. 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 793199 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "583-84" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/341/0569-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E.2d 114", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "117" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573434 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "98" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "406 S.E.2d 833", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "835" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 654", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2556155 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "659" }, { "page": "659" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0654-01" ] }, { "cite": "220 S.E.2d 558", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "571" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 680", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570581 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "698" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0680-01" ] }, { "cite": "406 S.E.2d 876", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "897-98" }, { "page": "898" }, { "page": "899" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2554614 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "315-16" }, { "page": "317" }, { "page": "318" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0278-01" ] }, { "cite": "372 S.E.2d 523", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "527" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "323 N.C. 279", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2562603 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "285" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/323/0279-01" ] }, { "cite": "337 S.E.2d 833", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "846" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4715827 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "97" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "686 S.E.2d 493", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "501" }, { "page": "501" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 689", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4151348 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "701" }, { "page": "701" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/363/0689-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 744, "char_count": 17435, "ocr_confidence": 0.743, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.196935268442279e-08, "percentile": 0.4304082979355167 }, "sha256": "8c2c0e3ceb295960b6fbfdcb1456d742d6ac9d2c84755d96a78ab385fb6e6c3e", "simhash": "1:c7795962b13eae5a", "word_count": 2751 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:24:03.194595+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges McGEE and BEASLEY concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RENNY DEANJELO MOBLEY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STEELMAN, Judge.\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the 19 September 2007 booking-area phone call under Rule 803(6) where testimony revealed the caller\u2019s voice was similar to defendant\u2019s, the caller identified himself as \u201cLittle Renny,\u201d and the caller dialed the same number as defendant\u2019s later calls from the jail. The circumstances of defendant initiating contact with the undercover officers and brokering the drug buy provide substantial evidence to support defendant\u2019s conviction of conspiracy to sell a counterfeit controlled substance.\nI. Factual and Procedural Background\nOn 19 September 2007, Stephen Whitesel (Whitesel), an undercover narcotics officer with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, conducted a street-level \u201cbuy bust\u201d operation in the Westover Patrol Division of Mecklenburg County. The operation\u2019s arrest team followed closely in a \u201ctake down van\u201d as Whitesel and his partner, Officer Dan Kellough (Kellough), drove to Watson Drive attempting to purchase crack cocaine or marijuana.\nAt or around 2:45 p.m., Whitesel and Kellough turned-on to Watson Drive and saw defendant standing near a crowd gathered on a porch. As the officers approached the house, defendant \u201chollered and told [the officers] to turn around\u201d and pointed to a place to park. Kellough parked the vehicle and Whitesel video-taped the drug buy with a hidden camera. Whitesel observed defendant approach a man, later identified as Rakeem McCullough (McCullough), who then walked into a nearby apartment and returned with a plastic bag.\nDefendant and McCullough approached Whitesel on the passenger side of the vehicle and defendant asked Whitesel, \u201cwhat do you need?\u201d Whitesel stated, \u201cjust 40,\u201d which denoted forty dollar\u2019s worth of crack cocaine. McCullough was hesitant about the deal, but defendant stated that \u201cthese guys are straight, they ain\u2019t no police, they\u2019re straight.\u201d With defendant\u2019s reassurance, McCullough produced two small plastic baggies, each containing one rock of a \u201chard white substance.\u201d Whitesel paid McCullough forty dollars in marked bills for what the officers believed to be crack cocaine. A subsequent laboratory analysis revealed that it was .15 grams of a counterfeit controlled substance, not crack cocaine.\nThe officers drove away from defendant and gave the signal for the \u201ctake down units\u201d to intercede, describing both defendant and McCullough as subjects for arrest. After defendant and McCullough were taken into custody along with two other men, Whitesel and Kellough identified defendant and McCullough as the persons who sold them crack cocaine. Defendant was transported to the Mecklenburg County jail. Defendant was charged with conspiracy to sell and deliver cocaine. A positive identification (PID) number is given to individuals as part of the intake process at the Mecklenburg County jail. The number consists of an inmate\u2019s fingerprint number and the last four digits of their social security number. If an inmate makes a phone call, they must first enter their PID number. Individuals still in the booking area have not yet been issued a PID number.\nInmates\u2019 telephone calls are recorded and the recordings are kept in the regular course of business at the Mecklenburg County jail. Although the county jail contracts with an outside company for the recording equipment, the recordings are unalterable and stored on-site at the jail. Once a call is recorded, it is tagged with \u201c[t]he PID number, the area of the facility the call came from, the telephone it came from, the date, time, the number dialed\u201d and can be transferred to a compact disk for use at trial.\nSergeant Jamie Brantley (Brantley) was employed by the Mecklenburg County Sheriff\u2019s office on 19 September 2007 and was assigned to monitor inmate telephone calls and create disks of those calls. Brantley made a compilation of the calls made from the booking area on 19 September 2007, which would have included any call defendant made before being issued a PID number. Brantley cross-referenced the compilation to the later calls listed under defendant\u2019s PID number and identified a call from the booking area on 19 September 2007 that matched the telephone number from defendant\u2019s later calls and featured an inmate voice similar to that of the defendant. At trial, Whitesel testified that he recognized defendant as being the caller in the call made from the booking area on 19 September 2007.\nIn the call made from the booking area, the caller identified himself as \u201cLittle Renny.\u201d The caller also stated that \u201cI gave the little n-the sh\u2014 to give him,\u201d and that \u201cme, Mark and that other little n-\u201d got arrested.\nThis case came on for trial on 9 February 2009. Defendant was tried for conspiracy to sell a counterfeit controlled substance. At the close of State\u2019s evidence and again at the close of defendant\u2019s evidence, defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss was denied.\nThe jury found defendant guilty of conspiracy to sell a counterfeit controlled substance. Defendant pled guilty to habitual felon status and was sentenced to 92 to 120 months imprisonment.\nDefendant appeals.\nII. Recording of Call from Booking Area\nIn his first argument, defendant contends that under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 901(a), the telephone conversation submitted as State\u2019s Exhibit 13 under Rule 803(6) was not authenticated and that the admission of evidence constituted reversible error. We disagree.\nA. Standard of Review\nUnder Rule 803, cases are conflicting as to the appropriate standard of review. We review the trial court\u2019s determination to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion. State v. Williams, 363 N.C. 689, 701, 686 S.E.2d 493, 501 (2009); State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 97, 337 S.E.2d 833, 846 (1985). We refuse to overturn a judgment for abuse of discretion unless \u201cthe court\u2019s ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.\u201d Williams, 363 N.C. at 701, 686 S.E.2d at 501 (quoting State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523, 527 (1988)).\nB. Admission of State\u2019s Exhibit 13\nDefendant contends that the State failed to authenticate the 19 September 2007 booking-area call because the caller could not be identified as defendant. Defendant argues that Brantley was not qualified to match the caller\u2019s voice to defendant\u2019s voice and a caller identifying himself as \u201cLittle Renny\u201d was insufficient to establish that the caller was in fact defendant, Renny Mobley.\nThe booking-area call was marked as State\u2019s Exhibit 13 and admitted into evidence as a business record exception to the hearsay rule under Rule 803(6). Defendant\u2019s objection to the evidence on the grounds that the call could not be authenticated under Rule 901 was overruled. The evidence was supported by testimony from the record\u2019s custodian, Sergeant Brantley.\nRule 803(6) states in part that a business record is \u201c[a] memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form\u201d of information provided by or from a person with knowledge and kept in the course of regular business activity as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 803(6) (2009).\nAn audio recording admitted under Rule 803 must nevertheless be authenticated under Rule 901. State v. Stager, 329 N.C. 278, 315-16, 406 S.E.2d 876, 897-98 (1991). Rule 901 permits authentication by evidence sufficient \u201cto support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 901(a) (2009). Thus, the issue is whether there is competent evidence that the booking-area caller was defendant.\nA caller\u2019s identity may be established by testimony connecting the voice on the recording with defendant or by some circumstantial evidence. State v. Williams, 288 N.C. 680, 698, 220 S.E.2d 558, 571 (1975); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 901(a). A witness\u2019 testimony as to the identity of the declarant \u201cbased on personal knowledge is all that is required to authenticate a tape recording.\u201d Stager, 329 N.C. at 317, 406 S.E.2d at 898. Sergeant Brantley testified that inmates\u2019 calls are recorded in the normal course of business and kept at the Mecklenburg County Jail according to the inmates\u2019 PID number. The call identified by Sergeant Brantley was made to the same number as defendant\u2019s subsequent calls and featured a voice similar to defendant\u2019s subsequent calls. Whitesel, the undercover officer who interacted with defendant during the drug buy, also identified defendant as the caller in State\u2019s Exhibit 13.\nIn the booking-area call, the caller identified himself as \u201cLittle Renny,\u201d which includes defendant Renny Mobley\u2019s first name. The caller related that \u201cme, Mark and that other little n-\u201d got arrested and refers again to the \u201clittle n-\u201d as the person who handled the substance. This is substantially similar to the circumstances of defendant\u2019s arrest. The State contended that the caller was referring to himself (defendant), Mark Murphy (Murphy), and McCullough. The fourth man taken into custody was given a citation for possession of drug paraphernalia and released at the scene. Only defendant, Murphy, and McCullough were arrested for conspiring to sell a substance, which only McCullough handled.\nThis circumstantial evidence authenticated the caller\u2019s identity in State\u2019s Exhibit 13. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the call into evidence. Stager, 329 N.C. at 318, 406 S.E.2d at 899.\nEven assuming arguendo that the trial court admitted State\u2019s Exhibit 13 in error, defendant failed to demonstrate how the admission of the recording was prejudicial. N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1443(a) (2009). Whitesel and Kellough each testified that defendant was present at the drug buy. Whitesel and Kellough testified that defendant initiated contact with the officers, directed their car where to park, and brokered the sale by first asking Whitesel what he wanted and then encouraging McCullough to complete the sale. Based on Whitesel and Kellough\u2019s testimony and for the reasons stated infra regarding representation of the substance sold to Whitesel, there was substantial other evidence that defendant was guilty of conspiracy to sell a counterfeit controlled substance. Admission of State\u2019s Exhibit 13 was not prejudicial. Id.; State v. Morgan, 329 N.C. 654, 659, 406 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1991).\nThis argument is without merit.\nIV. Motion to Dismiss\nIn his second argument, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions to dismiss because there was insufficient evidence that defendant knew the controlled substance sold to Officer Whitesel was counterfeit. We disagree.\nA. Standard of Review\nWe review denial of a motion to dismiss criminal charges de novo, to determine \u201cwhether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and (2) of defendant\u2019s being the perpetrator of such offense.\u201d State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 98, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980). Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would find adequate to support a conclusion. State v. Vick, 341 N.C. 569, 583-84, 461 S.E.2d 655, 663 (1995). We must consider evidence in a light most favorable to the State and give the State the benefit of every reasonable inference from the evidence. State v. Parker, 354 N.C. 268, 278, 553 S.E.2d 885, 894 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1114, 153 L. Ed. 2d 162 (2002).\nB. Conspiracy to Sell a Counterfeit Controlled Substance\nDefendant was convicted of conspiracy to sell a counterfeit controlled substance under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(a)(2), which states that it is unlawful to \u201ccreate, sell or deliver, or possess with intent to sell or deliver, a counterfeit controlled substance.\u201d Criminal conspiracy is an agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means and may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. State v. Diaz, 155 N.C. App. 307, 319, 527 S.E.2d 523, 531 (2002); cert. denied, 357 N.C. 464, 586 S.E.2d 271 (2003), and cert. denied, 357 N.C. 659, 590 S.E.2d 396 (2003), and cert. dismissed, - N.C. \u2014, 632 S.E.2d 496 (2006).\nA counterfeit controlled substance is \u201c[a]ny substance which is by any means intentionally represented as a controlled substance.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-87(6)(b) (2009). Evidence that a counterfeit controlled substance has been intentionally represented as a controlled substance includes:\n1. The substance was packaged or delivered in a manner normally used for the illegal delivery of controlled substances.\n2. Money or other valuable property has been exchanged or requested for the substance, and the amount of that consideration was substantially in excess of the reasonable value of the substance.\n3. The physical appearance of the tablets, capsules or other finished product containing the substance is substantially identical to a specified controlled substance.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-87(6)(b).\nDefendant argues that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(a)(2) requires defendant to knowingly have misrepresented a counterfeit controlled substance as an actual controlled substance. State v. Bivens, - N.C. App. - S.E.2d -, (June 1, 2010) (No. COA09-483). Bivens held that \u201cN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-87(6) . . . requires only that the substance be \u2018intentionally represented as a controlled substance])]\u2019 not that a defendant have specific knowledge that the substance is counterfeit.\u201d Id. at -, -, S.E.2d at - (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-87(6)(b)).\nWhitesel asked for a \u201c40,\u201d which denoted forty dollars worth of crack cocaine. McCullough then produced a hard, white substance packaged in two \u201csmall corner [baggies].\u201d Both Whitesel and Kellough believed the substance sold to Whitesel was crack cocaine.\nThere is substantial circumstantial evidence that defendant intentionally represented the substance sold to Officer Whitesel as a controlled substance under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-87(6)(b). The substance was packaged in \u201csmall corner [baggies],\u201d a practice normally used to deliver crack cocaine. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-87(6)(b)(l). Whitesel paid forty dollars for .15 grams of the substance. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-87(6) (b)(2). The two rocks of hard, white substance sold to Whitesel appeared to two veteran narcotics officers to be crack cocaine. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-87(6)(b)(3). Based on this evidence, a reasonable jury could infer that defendant intentionally represented the substance sold to Whitesel as a controlled substance and that the substance was therefore a counterfeit controlled substance.\nFurther, there is substantial evidence that defendant conspired with McCullough to sell a counterfeit controlled substance. Whitesel and Kellough\u2019s testimony demonstrated that defendant initiated contact with the officers and directed them where to park. Defendant spoke briefly with McCullough, who then entered a nearby apartment and emerged carrying a plastic bag which contained the substance. Both defendant and McCullough approached Whitesel, but it was defendant who brokered the deal, asking Whitesel what he wanted. When McCullough hesitated to complete the sale, defendant reassured him that Whitesel and Kellough were \u201cstraight, they ain\u2019t no police, they\u2019re straight.\u201d From these circumstances, a jury could reasonably infer that defendant conspired with McCullough to sell the substance.\nThe State was required to prove that defendant conspired to \u201ccreate, sell or deliver ... a counterfeit controlled substance.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(a)(2). Based on the packaging and delivery of the substance and the conduct of defendant, there is substantial evidence that defendant conspired to sell or deliver a counterfeit controlled substance. Morgan, 329 N.C. at 659, 406 S.E.2d at 835; Bivens, - N.C. App. at -, - S.E.2d at -.\nThis argument is without merit.\nNO ERROR.\nJudges McGEE and BEASLEY concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "STEELMAN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Larissa S. Williamson for the State.", "James N. Freeman, Jr., for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RENNY DEANJELO MOBLEY\nNo. COA09-975\n(Filed 3 August 2010)\n1. Evidence\u2014 hearsay \u2014 business records exception \u2014 authentication \u2014 no abuse of discretion\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in a counterfeit controlled substances case in admitting under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 803(6) an audio recording of a phone call made from the booking area of a police station. The call was properly authenticated where testimony revealed the caller\u2019s voice was similar to defendant\u2019s, the caller identified himself as \u201cLittle Renny\u201d (Renny being defendant\u2019s first name), and the caller dialed the same number as defendant\u2019s later calls from the jail. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the trial court erred in admitting the recording, defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice.\n2. Drugs\u2014 conspiracy to sell counterfeit controlled substance \u2014 substantial evidence \u2014 motion to dismiss properly denied\nThe trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motions to dismiss the charge of conspiracy to sell a counterfeit controlled substance. The circumstances of defendant initiating contact with the undercover officers and brokering the drug buy provided substantial evidence to support defendant\u2019s conviction.\nAppeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 11 February 2009 by Judge James W. Morgan Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 January 2010.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Larissa S. Williamson for the State.\nJames N. Freeman, Jr., for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0285-01", "first_page_order": 309, "last_page_order": 317 }