State v. StimpsonÂ, 256 N.C. App. 364

On March 22, 2014, a group in a dark/red Jeep Cherokee committed a series of early-morning armed robberies and two shootings in Greensboro; victims were accosted at multiple locations and items (wallets, phones, bags, car keys, a briefcase) were taken.
Police pursued and arrested driver Aaron Spivey; officers subsequently found Antonio Stimpson (Defendant) and LeMarcus McKinnon nearby; Stimpson possessed victim property and admitted being a passenger in the Jeep and handling a gun days earlier.
The State charged Stimpson, Spivey, and McKinnon with multiple offenses including five separate conspiracy-to-robbery-with-a-firearm counts (one for each robbery), among many substantive counts; Spivey and McKinnon did not testify at trial.
The jury convicted Stimpson on all counts; on appeal Stimpson abandoned all claims except his challenge to four of the five conspiracy convictions (arguing they should merge into a single conspiracy).
The majority affirmed all convictions, holding that, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, there was sufficient evidence for jurors to infer five separate conspiracies; a dissenting judge would have vacated four counts as arising from a single conspiracy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Stimpson)	Held
Whether the evidence supported five separate conspiracy convictions or only a single conspiracy	Evidence supports multiple conspiracies because robberies were opportunistic, victims and property were unrelated, no proof of a single continuing plan; jury could infer separate agreements for each incident	Only one implied agreement existed (the men met the night before); facts (same participants, short time span, similar objectives, lack of meetings) show a single continuing conspiracy — multiple counts violate double jeopardy	Affirmed: sufficient evidence to submit five conspiracy counts to the jury; trial court did not err in denying motion to dismiss four counts

State v. Bradshaw, 366 N.C. 90 (2012) (standard for reviewing motions to dismiss; view evidence in favor of the State)
State v. Tirado, 358 N.C. 551 (2004) (multi-factor test — nature of agreement, objectives, time interval, participants, meetings — for single vs. multiple conspiracies)
State v. Medlin, 86 N.C. App. 114 (1987) (vacating multiple conspiracy convictions where facts showed one ongoing conspiracy)
State v. Fink, 92 N.C. App. 523 (1989) (hour‑scale overlap can indicate a single continuing conspiracy)
State v. Wilson, 106 N.C. App. 342 (1992) (similar facts over a short period supported finding of a single conspiracy)
State v. Griffin, 112 N.C. App. 838 (1993) (same participants, objectives, and lack of meetings supported single conspiracy)
State v. Rozier, 69 N.C. App. 38 (1984) (articulated four Rozier factors to determine single vs. multiple conspiracies)
State v. Roberts, 176 N.C. App. 159 (2006) (upheld separate conspiracy convictions where evidence did not show earlier agreement extended to subsequent offenses)
State v. Glisson, 796 S.E.2d 124 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017) (separate transactions with different initiation and timing can support multiple conspiracies)