State v. GlissonÂ, 251 N.C. App. 844

Defendant Deborah Glisson was charged after three controlled buys of oxycodone arranged by the sheriff’s office (Aug 16, Sep 13, and Dec 7, 2012); transactions involved Glisson and James Adkins in Glisson’s Ford Focus.
At the first buy (Aug 16) Glisson drove, counted pills, and accepted payment; pills were later lab-confirmed as oxycodone.
At the second buy (Sept 13) Glisson and Adkins arrived, Glisson said she disliked the location, counted out 20 oxycodone pills and accepted $80.
At the third buy (Dec 7) Glisson picked up Adkins, accepted $200, and Adkins handed over 34 oxycodone pills; Glisson was arrested after delivery.
At trial the court reduced or dismissed some trafficking counts on weight grounds, denied a global motion to dismiss, and the jury convicted Glisson of multiple offenses including conspiracy charges; Glisson appealed the sufficiency of evidence for the conspiracy charge arising from the Sept 13 transaction.

Issue	State's Argument	Glisson's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to convict Glisson of conspiracy with Adkins to traffic opium on Sept 13, 2012	State: circumstantial facts (same vehicle, Adkins’ repeated presence, Glisson counted pills and exchanged money in front of Adkins, isolated meeting at dusk in a place Glisson disliked) permit an inference of an implied agreement	Glisson: only Adkins’s mere presence at the Sept 13 transaction was shown; no evidence of an agreement to conspire on that date	Court: Evidence was substantial to send conspiracy to jury; reasonable inferences supported an implied agreement for the Sept 13 transaction (no error)
Whether evidence of the three buys supports a single continuing conspiracy or multiple separate conspiracies	State: each transaction was a separate agreement completed upon transfer of money and drugs	Glisson: prior/following transactions cannot be used to support a separate conspiracy charge for Sept 13; should be treated as a single conspiracy	Court: Facts (time gaps, different amounts, buyer-initiated buys) supported separate conspiracies; question for jury and evidence supported multiple conspiracies

State v. Mueller, 184 N.C. App. 553 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007) (general motion to dismiss can preserve insufficiency claims)
State v. Nabors, 365 N.C. 306 (N.C. 2011) (trial court must consider sufficiency of evidence for each element on motion to dismiss)
State v. Olson, 330 N.C. 557 (N.C. 1992) (defines substantial evidence standard)
State v. Vause, 328 N.C. 231 (N.C. 1991) (substantial-evidence review is de novo)
State v. Benson, 331 N.C. 537 (N.C. 1992) (view evidence in light most favorable to State on motion to dismiss)
State v. Bell, 311 N.C. 131 (N.C. 1984) (criminal conspiracy defined; proof may be by implied agreement)
State v. Morgan, 329 N.C. 654 (N.C. 1991) (no express agreement required; mutual implied understanding suffices for conspiracy)
State v. Worthington, 84 N.C. App. 150 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987) (conspiracy usually proven by a series of acts taken together)
State v. Hamilton, 77 N.C. App. 506 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985) (close cases should be submitted to the jury)
State v. Jackson, 103 N.C. App. 239 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991) (presence of an accomplice to provide safety can support conspiracy inference)
State v. Rozier, 69 N.C. App. 38 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984) (factors for single vs. multiple conspiracies: time, participants, objectives, meetings)
State v. Medlin, 86 N.C. App. 114 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987) (conspiracy continues until fruition or abandonment)
State v. Tirado, 358 N.C. 551 (N.C. 2004) (whether separate or single conspiracies is a jury question)