sufficiency of the evidence claim in North Carolina

2026“When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court considers whether the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State and allowing every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, constitutes substantial evidence of each element of the crime charged.” State v. Taylor, 362 N.C. 514, 538 , 669 S.E.2d 239, 261 (2008) (citation modified).

2026“When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court considers whether the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State and allowing every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, constitutes substantial evidence of each element of the crime charged.” State v. Taylor, 362 N.C. 514, 538 , 669 S.E.2d 239, 261 (2008) (citation modified).

2020Under a sufficiency of the evidence standard, “the State is entitled to every reasonable intendment and every reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence; contradictions and discrepancies do not warrant dismissal of the case—they are for the jury to resolve.” State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 67 , 296 S.E.2d 649, 653 (1982).

2020Under a sufficiency of the evidence standard, “the State is entitled to every reasonable intendment and every reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence; contradictions and discrepancies do not warrant dismissal of the case—they are for the jury to resolve.” State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 67 , 296 S.E.2d 649, 653 (1982).

2020See Collington I, 2015 WL 4081786, at *4 (concluding that there was not plain error because “[t]he jury reasonably could have believed that Defendant was in possession of Mr. Sapp’s gun” after noting that defendant conceded in his brief that the evidence was legally sufficient to convict on a proper instruction and discounting any evidence put on by defendant at trial).

2020See Collington I, 2015 WL 4081786, at *4 (concluding that there was not plain error because “[t]he jury reasonably could have believed that Defendant was in possession of Mr. Sapp’s gun” after noting that defendant conceded in his brief that the evidence was legally sufficient to convict on a proper instruction and discounting any evidence put on by defendant at trial).

2026What level of evidence is sufficient to support each element has also been considered by our highest court, In State v. Johnson, 199 N.C. 429 , 154 S.E. 730 (1930), Chief Justice Stacy wrote the classic statement of the sufficiency of the evidence test: “It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between evidence sufficient to carry a case to the jury, and a mere scintilla, which only raises a suspicion or possibility of the fact in issue.

2026What level of evidence is sufficient to support each element has also been considered by our highest court, In State v. Johnson, 199 N.C. 429 , 154 S.E. 730 (1930), Chief Justice Stacy wrote the classic statement of the sufficiency of the evidence test: “It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between evidence sufficient to carry a case to the jury, and a mere scintilla, which only raises a suspicion or possibility of the fact in issue.

2025App. at 123–24, 573 S.E.2d at 685–86 (rejecting the defendant’s motion to suppress argument on appeal for lack of probable cause when, at the hearing, he only argued coercion)).

2017See id. , 155 N.C.App. at 123 -24 , 573 S.E.2d at 685-86 (arguing before the trial court that the defendant's confession was coerced, while arguing on appeal that the defendant's seizure was improper for lack of probable cause); State v. Baldwin , 117 N.C.App. 713 , 717, 453 S.E.2d 193 , 195 (1995) (arguing double jeopardy concerns at trial, while arguing on appeal a variance between the indictment and the proof offered at trial); State v. Willams , 209 N.C.App. 757 , 710 S.E.2d 707 , 2011 WL 693281 *1, *3, 2011 N.C.

2020“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78-79 , 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980).

2020“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78-79 , 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980).

2014Both the motion for directed verdict and the motion for JNOV on the malicious prosecution claim are reviewed under a sufficiency of the evidence standard: “On appeal our standard of review for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is the same as that for a directed verdict; that is, whether the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury.” Whitaker v. Akers, 137 N.C.

2014App. 274, 277 , 527 S.E.2d 721, 724 (2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2008“Substantial evidence means that the evidence must be existing and real, not just seeming or imaginary.” Id. at 12, 455 S.E.2d at 632 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Clark, 325 N.C. 677, 682 , 386 S.E.2d 191, 194 (1989)). “ ‘[A]n attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon occurs when a person, with the specific intent to unlawfully deprive another of personal property by endangering or threatening his life with a dangerous weapon, does some overt act calculated to bring about this *539 result.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Allison, 319 N.C. 92, 96 , 352 S.E.2d 420, 423 (1987)).

2008“Substantial evidence means that the evidence must be existing and real, not just seeming or imaginary.” Id. at 12, 455 S.E.2d at 632 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Clark, 325 N.C. 677, 682 , 386 S.E.2d 191, 194 (1989)). “ ‘[A]n attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon occurs when a person, with the specific intent to unlawfully deprive another of personal property by endangering or threatening his life with a dangerous weapon, does some overt act calculated to bring about this *539 result.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Allison, 319 N.C. 92, 96 , 352 S.E.2d 420, 423 (1987)).

2008“Substantial evidence means that the evidence must be existing and real, not just seeming or imaginary.” Id. at 12, 455 S.E.2d at 632 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Clark, 325 N.C. 677, 682 , 386 S.E.2d 191, 194 (1989)). “ ‘[A]n attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon occurs when a person, with the specific intent to unlawfully deprive another of personal property by endangering or threatening his life with a dangerous weapon, does some overt act calculated to bring about this *539 result.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Allison, 319 N.C. 92, 96 , 352 S.E.2d 420, 423 (1987)).

2008“Substantial evidence means that the evidence must be existing and real, not just seeming or imaginary.” Id. at 12, 455 S.E.2d at 632 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Clark, 325 N.C. 677, 682 , 386 S.E.2d 191, 194 (1989)). “ ‘[A]n attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon occurs when a person, with the specific intent to unlawfully deprive another of personal property by endangering or threatening his life with a dangerous weapon, does some overt act calculated to bring about this *539 result.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Allison, 319 N.C. 92, 96 , 352 S.E.2d 420, 423 (1987)).

2008When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court considers whether the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the state and allowing every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, constitutes “substantial evidence of each element of the crime charged.” State v. Davis, 340 N.C. 1, 11-12 , 455 S.E.2d 627, 632 , cert. denied, 516 U.S. 846 (1995).

2008When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court considers whether the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the state and allowing every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, constitutes “substantial evidence of each element of the crime charged.” State v. Davis, 340 N.C. 1, 11-12 , 455 S.E.2d 627, 632 , cert. denied, 516 U.S. 846 (1995).

2000See State v. Roddey, 110 N.C.

1987This statement of the sufficiency of the evidence test comports with the articulation given by the United States Supreme Court as whether, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979) (emphasis original).

1987This statement of the sufficiency of the evidence test comports with the articulation given by the United States Supreme Court as whether, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979) (emphasis original).

1987See State v. LeDuc, 306 N.C. 62 , 291 S.E.2d 607 (1982); State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62 , 296 S.E.2d 649 ; State v. Jones, 303 N.C. 500 , 279 S.E.2d 835 (1981).

1987See State v. LeDuc, 306 N.C. 62 , 291 S.E.2d 607 (1982); State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62 , 296 S.E.2d 649 ; State v. Jones, 303 N.C. 500 , 279 S.E.2d 835 (1981).