State v. Woodard, 210 N.C. App. 725

Defendant Woodard was indicted in July 2009 on trafficking more than 28 grams of opium by possession and by transportation, felonious breaking and entering, felonious larceny, and felonious possession of stolen goods.
Crossnore Drugstore was broken into; approximately 2,691 hydrocodone tablets were stolen, inventory losses exceeded $31,000.
Hensley and McDaniel were involved; Hensley testified that Woodard and McDaniel helped break in and carried away pills.
A Mitchell County pharmacy break-in occurred a few days earlier with the same participants and around 1:00 a.m.; Hensley testified to this prior incident over defense objection.
Pharmacist William Martin testified to the pharmacy’s meticulous inventory, identifying stolen hydrocodone tablets and estimating total weight around 1,472 grams.
The trial court admitted Hensley’s Mitchell County testimony for limited purposes; jury found Woodard guilty on all charged offenses on April 28, 2010.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of Mitchell County testimony	Hensley testimony admissible to show plan and identity	Testimony is improper character evidence and prejudicial	Court did not abuse discretion; testimony admissible for plan/identity with limiting instruction
Sufficiency to prove trafficking opium by possession/transportation	Identity and weight proven by inventory and pharmacist testimony	Need chemical analysis to prove identity/weight	Sufficient evidence established identity beyond reasonable doubt; no chemical analysis required
Sufficiency to sustain B&E, larceny, and trafficking by possession/transportation	Hensley’s testimony supports all elements	Insufficient proof for some elements	Evidence sufficient; denial of motions to dismiss affirmed
Preservation of certain constitutional errors		Prison clothing during voir dire and coaching during direct examination	Waived for appeal; plain error review not applicable

State v. Ward, 364 N.C. 133 (2010) (chemical identity proof requires more than visual identification)
State v. Llamas-Hernandez, 363 N.C. 8 (2009) (visual identification of a controlled substance is unreliable)
State v. Summers, 177 N.C.App. 691 (2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings under Rule 404(b))
State v. Aldridge, 139 N.C.App. 706 (2000) (evidence may be admissible for non-propensity purposes if sufficiently similar)
State v. Stager, 329 N.C. 278 (1991) (need concurrence of common features for 404(b) similarity)