Criminal Practice – Stolen Gun – Knowledge Requirement

The State presented sufficient evidence that Defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to know the gun was stolen property, based on incriminating circumstances, and the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss this charge for insufficient evidence.

We affirmed the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss his charge of possession of a stolen firearm for insufficient evidence.

Defendant appealed from the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss his charge of possession of a stolen firearm for insufficient evidence. On appeal, Defendant contended the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Defendant “knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the [gun] was stolen.” We disagreed. Defendant fled by car from officers, running red lights and exceeding the speed limit, all while a gun was inside his vehicle. Defendant “surreptitiously hid[]” the gun in his vehicle behind a loose panel in the steering wheel. Moreover, during his exchange with the officers upon his apprehension, Defendant denied possessing a gun and further denied having anything in his hotel room, but officers later found the gun in the hidden compartment of Defendant’s vehicle, and found .38 caliber ammunition inside the room, which is the type of ammunition for which the gun is chambered. These facts indicate the State presented substantial evidence that a reasonable juror may find that Defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the gun discovered in his vehicle was stolen.

Finally, there is other incriminating evidence, such as Defendant’s flight from the officers and the .38 caliber ammunition found in his hotel room, from which a reasonable juror may conclude that Defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the gun discovered in his vehicle was stolen. As the State presented evidence from which a reasonable juror may find Defendant guilty, we concluded the State met its evidentiary burden of presenting substantial evidence. Accordingly, it was not error for the trial court to deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, and we affirmed the trial court’s denial.

Affirmed.

State of North Carolina v. Mack Vernon Bracey (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-314-24, 14 pp.) (Julee Flood, J.) Appealed from Brunswick County Superior Court (Jason C. Disbrow, J.) Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Adrina G. Bass, for the State; Hynson Law, PLLC, by Warren D. Hynson, for defendant-appellant. North Carolina Court of Appeals