State v. RossÂ, 249 N.C. App. 672

Early morning break-in at a Fayetteville fast-food restaurant; surveillance video showed an intruder removing an AC unit, entering through the hole, attempting to open the safe using paper with a possible safe code, then removing boxes of meat and leaving.
Two employees and the owner identified Rodney Johnathan Ross as the intruder in the video.
Ross’s girlfriend, a recently fired restaurant manager (Ms. Jackson), had access to the safe combination; her GPS tether placed her near the restaurant at the time of the break-in.
A jury convicted Ross of multiple felonies including safecracking; Ross later pleaded guilty to habitual felon status and received consolidated judgment and sentence.
Ross failed to designate the appellate court in his notice of appeal; the Court of Appeals granted certiorari to reach the merits.
On appeal Ross argued (1) the surveillance video was not properly authenticated and (2) the jury instruction on safecracking materially varied from the indictment.

Issue	State's Argument	Ross's Argument	Held
Authentication of surveillance video	Manager testimony established the system was standard, working, maintained, and the offered video was the same recording — sufficient under Rule 901 and Snead	Testimony was insufficient because it did not establish reliability of the surveillance system	Video was properly authenticated under Rule 901; even if not, admission was not plain error because Ross showed no prejudice or that foundation could not be laid
Variance between indictment and jury instruction for safecracking	The instruction (surreptitious means) fit the evidence and allowed conviction	Indictment alleged a different means (fraudulently acquired combination); court’s instruction materially varied from indictment, constituting fatal variance and plain error	Safecracking conviction vacated: the jury was instructed on subsection (surreptitious means) not alleged in the indictment (fraudulently acquired combination), and the State presented no evidence of the indicted theory, causing prejudicial variance

State v. Snead, 783 S.E.2d 733 (N.C. 2016) (automatic store surveillance recordings can be authenticated as accurate products of an automated process under Rule 901)
State v. Williams, 350 S.E.2d 353 (N.C. 1986) (variance between indictment allegations and jury instruction on a material element is fatal)
State v. Black, 303 S.E.2d 804 (N.C. 1983) (plain error review standard for unpreserved trial errors)
State v. Tucker, 346 S.E.2d 417 (N.C. 1986) (plain error requires showing prejudice that the verdict would likely differ absent the error)
State v. Cummings, 536 S.E.2d 36 (N.C. 2000) (foundational requirements and harmlessness analysis for admission of contested evidence)