State v. De La Sancha Cobos, 211 N.C. App. 536

Defendant was indicted in Wake County for conspiracy to traffic cocaine and possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine.
The conspiracy indictment initially failed to allege the weight element; the State moved to amend to include 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams, and the court granted the amendment over defense objections.
At trial, the State presented evidence of a planned purchase of cocaine, including an undercover operation and arrest at a Zebulon/Compare Foods location, with bags of cocaine recovered from Defendant.
Convictions: conspiracy to traffic cocaine by delivery of 28+ but <200 grams and possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine; the trial court consolidated and sentenced to 35–42 months.
The Court of Appeals held that the amendment adding an essential element was improper and deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to try the conspiracy charge, requiring arrest of the conspiracy judgment; other issues were resolved against Defendant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amendment of the conspiracy indictment added an essential element	State argued amendments may cure defects or be consented to; the amendment did not alter the charge materially.	Cobos contends amendment added a substantive element thus altering the charge and lacked jurisdiction.	The amendment was material; jurisdiction was lacking; conspiracy conviction arrested.
Admission of the bag of white powder found on Defendant’s person	Evidence properly admitted as physical cocaine material; probative of possession with intent to sell	Bag was irrelevant absent identification as cocaine, prejudicial, and improper characterization as character evidence	Admission not reversible error; no prejudicial impact shown; plain error not established.
Plain error and admissibility of Investigator Wright’s hearsay testimony	Testimony was responsive to establish participation and knowledge; door opened during cross-examination	Wright’s detailed statements were hearsay and violated personal knowledge	Any error not plain error; no basis shown to reverse for plain error; no new trial required.
Confrontation clause claim	Not expressly relied upon on appeal; evidence supported the charges	Confrontation rights violated	Issue not properly preserved; plain error analysis applied only to jury instructions and evidentiary matters; no reversal on this ground.

State v. Snyder, 343 N.C. 61 (1996) (indictment must allege all essential elements)
State v. McBane, 276 N.C. 60 (1969) (constitutional requirement for valid indictment)
State v. Crabtree, 286 N.C. 541 (1975) (elements required in criminal indictment)
State v. Outlaw, 159 N.C.App. 423 (2003) (flawed indictment requires arrest of judgment for conspiracy)
State v. Jones, 110 N.C.App. 289 (1993) (consent to amendment not clearly established; materiality considerations)
State v. Jackson, 280 N.C. 563 (1972) (consent and amendment limitations; scope limited)
Hart v. Thomasville Motors, Inc., 244 N.C. 84 (1956) (jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent)
State v. Llamas-Hernandez, 189 N.C.App. 640 (2008) (lay opinion on substance identification; later reversed on other grounds)