Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus [Combined Opinion

                  by Judge Fred Gore](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10810288/state-v-patterson/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Patterson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-281

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

sufficiency of evidence; possession of firearm by felon; motion to dismiss; circumstantial evidence; robbery with a dangerous weapon.

Combined Opinion

                        by Judge Fred Gore

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with
the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA25-281

Filed 18 March 2026

Pitt County, Nos. 21CR055568-730, 21CR055571-730

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

JAMARCUS JAMAL PATTERSON, Defendant.

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 30 June 2023 by Judge Marvin K.

Blount III in Pitt County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 November

2025.

Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Assistant Attorney General Alexander H.
Ward, for the State.

Cooley Law Office, by Craig M. Cooley, for defendant-appellant.

GORE, Judge.

Defendant JaMarcus Jamal Patterson appeals his conviction for possession of

a firearm by a felon and robbery with a dangerous weapon. Defendant argues the

trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the possession of a firearm by a

felon charge. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs, we discern no error.

I.
STATE V. PATTERSON

Opinion of the Court

Defendant was charged and indicted on two counts of robbery with a deadly

weapon, one count of first-degree forcible rape, and two counts of felon in possession

of a firearm for two separate incidents in the early morning of 12 September 2021.

The first incident involved a woman who accused defendant of robbing her at gun

point and raping her after she invited him to her hotel room. This victim testified

defendant had a black handgun that was “smooth on both sides.” Defendant was seen

on surveillance video entering and leaving her room.

After this first incident, defendant was seen driving a grey Dodge Journey on

the East Carolina University (“ECU”) campus. This vehicle was also seen on

surveillance footage at the hotel. A seventeen-year-old freshman girl was walking to

her dorm room when defendant came behind her wearing a face covering and hat.

She testified defendant pointed a black handgun at her and demanded her purse.

Defendant fled with the purse once she screamed and threw the purse at him. She

testified the handgun appeared to be semi-automatic and was “smooth on both sides.”

Surveillance footage caught defendant running to his Dodge Journey with the victim’s

purse.

Police traced the vehicle to defendant’s residence and obtained a search

warrant. The victim’s purse was recovered at defendant’s residence, along with a gun

holster that was lying beside the same pair of pants defendant was wearing in the

surveillance videos. Police officers recovered defendant’s phone and discovered

photographs on his SIM card of defendant holding a black semi-automatic handgun.

-2-
STATE V. PATTERSON

Opinion of the Court

These photographs were time-stamped between the dates of 5 September 2021 and

10 September 2021. Defendant testified the handgun in the photos was an airsoft

gun. The handgun was never recovered.

The jury returned unanimous guilty verdicts for the robbery with a deadly

weapon charge and felon in possession of a firearm charge but deadlocked on the

remaining charges from the first incident. The trial court declared a mistrial on the

remaining charges because of the jury’s deadlock. The trial court sentenced

defendant to consecutive terms of 84 to 113 months’ imprisonment and 17 to 30

months’ imprisonment. Defendant timely appealed.

II.

Defendant appeals of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-27(b)(1) and 15A-

1444(a). Defendant argues the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss

the possession of a firearm by a felon charge because there was insufficient evidence

to support the possession element of the charge. Because defendant moved to dismiss

the charge at the close of the State’s evidence and again at the close of all the

evidence, he properly preserved this issue for appellate review.

We review a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence de novo. State v.

Blankenship, 259 N.C. App. 102, 112 (2018), writ denied, 371 N.C. 116 (2019).

In ruling on a motion to dismiss the trial court must
determine whether the State has presented substantial
evidence of each essential element of the offense charged
and substantial evidence that the defendant is the
perpetrator. If substantial evidence of each element is

-3-
STATE V. PATTERSON

Opinion of the Court

presented, the motion for dismissal is properly denied.
Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Circumstantial evidence may withstand a motion to
dismiss and support a conviction even when the evidence
does not rule out every hypothesis of innocence. The
evidence need only give rise to a reasonable inference of
guilt in order for it to be properly submitted to the jury.

The trial court is required to view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the State, making all reasonable
inferences from the evidence in favor of the State. Any
contradictions or discrepancies must be resolved in favor of
the State. However, if the evidence is sufficient only to
raise a suspicion or conjecture as to either the commission
of the offense or the identity of the defendant as the
perpetrator of it, the motion should be allowed.

State v. Ambriz, 286 N.C. App. 273, 277 (2022) (cleaned up).

Defendant argues the State failed to present substantial evidence that he

possessed the firearm. Possession of a firearm by a felon charge consists of the

following two elements: “(1) the defendant has been convicted of a felony, and (2) the

defendant subsequently possessed a firearm.” State v. Floyd, 369 N.C. 329, 333

(2016). We limit our review to whether there was substantial evidence of the

possession element of the charge to support denial of the motion to dismiss.

Defendant argues the definition of a firearm under section 14-415.1 requires more

than a victim’s subjective belief that the object they saw during the incident was a

-4-
STATE V. PATTERSON

Opinion of the Court

weapon.1 According to defendant, the State failed to meet the burden to show

substantial evidence that defendant possessed a firearm because the State never

recovered the firearm and the evidence presented was speculative.

Conversely, the State argues the circumstantial evidence presented was

sufficient to overcome the motion to dismiss. The State argues it was not required to

recover the firearm to prove the possession element. It points to State v. Grady and

State v. Dawkins in support of the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence when a

firearm is not recovered. Grady, 274 N.C. App. 429, 438–39 (2020) (determining there

was sufficient evidence of possession because the defendant was seen leaving the

home with a bag that appeared to carry something of weight, and it was later

determined three guns and a bag like the one the defendant carried were missing);

Dawkins, 196 N.C. App. 719, 725 (2009) (determining the jury could infer the

defendant possessed the firearm even though the .40 caliber firearm was not

recovered because the victim had a reputation for carrying a .40 caliber firearm in a

holster and the victim was shot by this weapon).

In the present case, the State presented evidence that both victims saw

defendant with a black handgun that was “smooth on both sides.” The State

recovered four time-stamped photos from defendant’s cell phone, taken just days prior

1 “A firearm is (i) any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be

converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, or its frame or receiver, or (ii) any
firearm muffler or firearm silencer.” N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1(a) (2020).

-5-
STATE V. PATTERSON

Opinion of the Court

to the incident, that showed defendant holding a black handgun. A detective testified

to the authenticity of the handgun in each photo by pointing out details in the photos,

the area of the shell casing and the slide on the handgun, to challenge defendant’s

allegation it was only a toy gun.

Additionally, Law enforcement found a gun holster on the ground by a pair of

pants, the same pants defendant was seen wearing in the surveillance videos.

Defendant admitted the holster was for a real firearm. The State presented evidence

this holster matched the size and color of the handgun described by the victims and

seen in the recovered photos. This cumulative evidence, when viewed in the light

most favorable to the State, was sufficient for a jury to infer defendant was in

possession of a handgun. Therefore, the trial court did not err by denying the motion

to dismiss for insufficient evidence.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss

the possession of a firearm by a felon charge.

NO ERROR.

Judges CARPENTER and WOOD concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

-6-