State v. Wade, 213 N.C. App. 481

Victor Wade and Roderick Young were jointly tried for AWDWIKISI and possession of a firearm by a felon.
The May 1, 2008 Mint Street party involved a confrontation where Wade allegedly possessed a handgun and Young assisted.
Ms. Ussery testified that Young shot Terrance Ross while Wade handed him the gun and urged continued shooting.
Defendants presented defense witnesses McDowell and Clark; Ross testified inconsistently about who shot him.
The jury found both defendants not guilty of attempted first-degree murder but guilty of AWDWIKISI and felon-in-possession, leading to appeals.
On appeal, the court assessed evidentiary objections, impeachment, and potential instructional/verdict issues for prejudicial error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of challenged testimony	Young argues exclusion prejudiced proof of concerted act.	Young claims excluded testimony would show lack of prejudice or negate concerted criminal act.	No prejudicial error; substantial evidence supports conviction.
Impeachment of Mr. Ross with probable cause hearing statements	State's impeachment of Ross with probable cause hearing statements was proper.	Impeachment via inconsistent probable cause hearing statements was prejudicial error.	Not prejudicial; overwhelming other evidence supports conviction.
Plain error from impeachment without preserved objection	Impeachment of Ross related to probable cause hearing should be preserved error.	Plain error argument applies due to lack of preservation.	No plain error; evidence remained overwhelming.
Sufficiency of the evidence for AWDWIKISI and felon in possession	Evidence shows Wade and Young acted in concert to commit AWDWIKISI and Wade possessed a firearm as a felon.	Evidence did not clearly identify who shot Ross; insufficiency to convict.	There was substantial evidence of each essential element; convictions affirmed.
Inconsistent verdict	Guilt for AWDWIKISI cannot stand where acquittal on attempted first-degree murder implied no intent to kill.	Verdicts were mutually exclusive and legally inconsistent.	Veridcts not mutually inconsistent; could find intent to kill for AWDWIKISI while not meeting all elements of attempted murder.

State v. Black, 111 N.C.App. 284, 432 S.E.2d 710 (1993) (admissibility of evidence and prejudice standard for evidentiary errors)
State v. Graham, 186 N.C.App. 182, 650 S.E.2d 639 (2007) (acting in concert standard)
State v. Cain, 79 N.C.App. 35, 338 S.E.2d 898 (1986) (elements of AWDWIKISI)
State v. Wood, 185 N.C.App. 227, 647 S.E.2d 679 (2007) (possession of firearm by felon elements)
State v. Aguallo, 322 N.C. 818, 370 S.E.2d 676 (1988) (scope and limits of cross-examination for credibility)
State v. Miller, 363 N.C. 96, 678 S.E.2d 592 (2009) (standard for reviewing motions to dismiss; substantial evidence)
State v. Reid, 322 N.C. 309, 367 S.E.2d 672 (1988) (plain error standard)
State v. Bishop, 346 N.C. 365, 488 S.E.2d 769 (1997) (plain error considerations)
State v. Mumford, 364 N.C. 394, 699 S.E.2d 911 (2010) (inconsistent verdicts and mutual exclusivity standard)
State v. Meshaw, 246 N.C. 205, 97 S.E.2d ??? (1957) (mutually exclusive verdicts doctrine)