#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES RALPH HINSON

No. 176A10

(Filed 8 October 2010)

Drugs— manufacturing methamphetamine — instruction or methods — no variance with indictment

A decision of the Court of Appeals that a variance between the indictment charging that defendant manufactured methamphetamine by “chemically combining and synthesizing precursor chemicals” and a jury instruction on the possible methods of manufacturing methamphetamine constituted plain error was reversed for the reason stated in the dissenting opinion that, while the trial court’s instruction utilized slightly different words than those in the indictment, the import of the language in the indictment and that in the instruction was the same.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 203 N.C. App.-, 691 S.E.2d 63 (2010), finding error in a judgment entered 17 October 2008 by Judge James W. Morgan in Superior Court, Cleveland County, and ordering a new trial in part and remanding for resentencing. Heard in the Supreme Court 8 September 2010.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by John R Scherer II and Katherine A. Murphy, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State-appellant.

Teddy & Meekins, by Anne Bleyman, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

REVERSED.