State v. Arzamendia

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: May 20, 2026
• Docket: 24-801
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Judge Michael Stading

Opinion

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA24-801

Filed 20 May 2026

Randolph County, No. 19CR051627-750

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

MARCO ANTONIO ARZAMENDIA, Defendant.

Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 6 February 2024 by Judge Taylor

Browne in Randolph County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 April

2025.

Todd Neal Law, by Attorney Todd Houston Neal, for the Defendant-Appellant.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Tracy Berry, for the State-Appellee.

STADING, Judge.

Marco Antonio Arzamendia (“Defendant”) appeals his convictions for felony

possession of marijuana and possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana. On

appeal, Defendant presents a single issue for our consideration as he contends that

the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss both charges due to insufficient STATE V. ARZAMENDIA

Opinion of the Court

evidence that the seized substance was illegal marijuana rather than legal hemp.

After carefully reviewing the record, we hold no error.

I. Background

Evidence tends to show that on the night of 20 March 2019, law enforcement

officers of the Asheboro Police Department (“APD”) were dispatched to an apartment

in response to a 911 call about a shooting. APD Officer Noah Phillips arrived and

encountered a visibly frantic man who feared his brother had been injured inside the

apartment. In response, Officer Phillips sought to locate any victims and entered the

apartment. Upon entry, he detected a strong odor of what he recognized as marijuana

emanating from inside the apartment. During his initial sweep for injured persons

or suspects, Officer Phillips observed a small scale in the bathroom, which he noted

was not a body-weight scale. Officer Phillips then exited the apartment. About 10 to

20 minutes later, Defendant and another individual arrived at the scene.

APD Officer Joshua Macon secured a search warrant for the apartment, which

officers executed later that night. During the search, APD Sergeant Corey Hatfield

discovered a vacuum-sealed plastic bag containing a large quantity of green plant

material hidden inside a shoebox in a bathroom cabinet. The substance was

suspected to be marijuana, seized as evidence, and sent to the North Carolina State

Crime Laboratory for analysis. On the cabinet’s counter, Sergeant Hatfield also

found a prescription pill bottle labeled with Defendant’s name.

-2- STATE V. ARZAMENDIA

The Randolph County Grand Jury returned a bill of indictment against

Defendant for felony possession of marijuana and possession with intent to sell or

deliver marijuana.

During trial, Shannon Gordon, a forensic scientist, testified about a series of

tests she conducted on the recovered substance. Ms. Gordon performed a colorimetric

test and a gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis, which she

described as a “fingerprint for known substances.” The GC-MS testing indicated the

substance was from the cannabis genus and contained several cannabinoids,

including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Ms. Gordon testified that while the tests

confirmed the presence of THC, they did not determine the concentration of THC in

the sample. In other words, the laboratory could not say whether the substance

contained more than 0.3% delta-9 THC.

At the close of the State’s evidence, Defendant moved to dismiss both charges

for insufficient evidence, arguing the State failed to prove the seized substance was

illegal marijuana as defined by law. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant

did not present evidence. The jury thereafter returned guilty verdicts on both

charges. The trial court consolidated the convictions for judgment and sentenced

Defendant to a term of 4 to 14 months imprisonment, suspended for 24 months of

supervised probation. Defendant entered oral notice of appeal in open court on the

day of sentencing.

-3- STATE V. ARZAMENDIA

II. Analysis

On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to

dismiss because the State’s evidence was insufficient to establish that the substance

seized from the apartment was marijuana rather than legal hemp.

“Whether the State presented substantial evidence of each essential element

of the offense is a question of law; therefore, we review the denial of a motion to

dismiss de novo.” State v. Golder, 374 N.C. 238, 250, 839 S.E.2d 782, 790 (2020)

(citations omitted). When a deciding a motion to dismiss, “the trial court need

determine only whether there is substantial evidence of each essential element of the

crime and that the defendant is the perpetrator.” State v. Winkler, 368 N.C. 572, 574,

780 S.E.2d 824, 826 (2015) (citations omitted); see also State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373,

379, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455 (2000). “Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” State v. Worley,

198 N.C. App. 329, 333, 679 S.E.2d 857, 861 (2009) (citation modified). “When

reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court considers whether the

evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State and allowing every reasonable

inference to be drawn therefrom, constitutes substantial evidence of each element of

the crime charged.” State v. Taylor, 362 N.C. 514, 538, 669 S.E.2d 239, 261 (2008)

(citation modified).

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(d)(4) (2025), possession of more than one and

one-half ounces of a Schedule VI controlled substance is punishable as a Class I

-4- STATE V. ARZAMENDIA

felony. “Possession of more than one and one-half ounces of marijuana is thus an

essential element of the crime of felony possession of marijuana.” State v. Partridge,

157 N.C. App. 568, 571, 579 S.E.2d 398, 400 (2003) (citation omitted). Also, N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 90-95(a) (2025) makes it “unlawful for any person: (1) [t]o manufacture, sell or

deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture, sell or deliver, a controlled substance.”

To obtain a conviction for possession of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver,

the State must prove the following: “(1) possession; (2) of a controlled substance; with

(3) the intent to sell or deliver that controlled substance.” State v. Blakney, 233 N.C.

App. 516, 519, 756 S.E.2d 844, 846 (2014) (citation omitted). We have held that while

“intent to sell or deliver may be shown by direct evidence, it is often proven by

circumstantial evidence from which it may be inferred.” State v. Wilkins, 208 N.C.

App. 729, 731, 703 S.E.2d 807, 809 (2010) (citation modified). Such intent “may be

inferred from (1) the packaging, labeling, and storage of the controlled substance, (2)

the defendant’s activities, (3) the quantity found, and (4) the presence of cash or drug

paraphernalia.” State v. Nettles, 170 N.C. App. 100, 106, 612 S.E.2d 172, 176 (2005)

(citation omitted).

Under North Carolina law, marijuana is defined as any part of the cannabis

plant containing more than 0.3% delta-9 THC, while cannabis material containing

0.3% or less THC is considered legal hemp. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-94(a)-(b) (2025).

The State bears the burden of proving that the seized substance is marijuana. See

State v. Carter, 255 N.C. App. 104, 106, 803 S.E.2d 464, 466 (2017) (quoting State v.

-5- STATE V. ARZAMENDIA

Ward, 364 N.C. 133, 147, 694 S.E.2d 738, 747 (2010) (“In the context of a controlled

substance case, ‘the burden is on the State to establish the identity of any alleged

controlled substance that is the basis of the prosecution.’ ”).

Defendant asserts that the State failed to meet its burden of proof. In

Defendant’s view, the State’s case rested “almost exclusively” on an officer’s

testimony about smelling marijuana and the lab analyst’s identification of the plant

as cannabis—evidence which, he contends, points to the substance being legal hemp.

Yet, contrary to Defendant’s urging, “our courts have never held [a chemical analysis]

is necessary” to allow a jury to determine whether a substance was marijuana or

hemp.” State v. Massey, 287 N.C. App. 501, 511, 882 S.E.2d 740, 749 (2023); see also

State v. Osborne, 372 N.C. 619, 630–31, 831 S.E.2d 328, 336 (2019). Instead, we have

consistently affirmed that testimony identifying a substance as marijuana—from a

law enforcement officer as well as a forensic expert—is sufficient to take the matter

to the jury. See Booth, 286 N.C. App. at 78–80, 879 S.E.2d at 376–77; Massey, 287

N.C. App. at 511, 882 S.E.2d at 749; State v. Duncan, 286 N.C. App. 159, 878 S.E.2d

682 (2022) (unpublished); State v. Johnson, 225 N.C. App. 440, 455, 737 S.E.2d 442,

451 (2013); State v. Mitchell, 217 N.C. App. 401, 720 S.E.2d 29 (2011) (unpublished).

Moreover, as analyzed below, we reject Defendant’s characterization of the

State’s case as “exclusive” reliance on the officer’s smell and the lab test. While those

were important components of the evidence, they were corroborated and

contextualized by the surrounding circumstances. See, e.g., Booth, 286 N.C. App. at

-6- STATE V. ARZAMENDIA

79, 879 S.E.2d at 376. Our case law reflects the great deference courts must give to

the role of jurors who determine the weight of evidence. See, e.g., State v. Earnhardt,

307 N.C. 62, 66, 296 S.E.2d 649, 652 (1982) (citation omitted) (“[I]f there be any

evidence tending to prove the fact in issue, or which reasonably conduces to its

conclusion as a fairly logical and legitimate deduction, and not merely such as raises

a suspicion or conjecture in regard to it, the case should be submitted to the jury.”).

“The trial court’s function is to determine whether the evidence allows a ‘reasonable

inference’ to be drawn as to the defendant’s guilt of the crimes charged.” Id. at 67,

296 S.E.2d at 652 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). “The jury’s role is to weigh

evidence, assess witness credibility, assign probative value to the evidence and

testimony, and determine what the evidence proves or fails to prove.” State v. Moore,

366 N.C. 100, 108, 726 S.E.2d 168, 174 (2012) (citations omitted). In other words,

“[o]nce the [trial] court decides that a reasonable inference of defendant’s guilt may

be drawn from the circumstances, then it is for the jury to decide whether the facts,

taken singly or in combination, satisfy it beyond a reasonable doubt that the

defendant is actually guilty.” Fritsch, 351 N.C. at 379, 526 S.E.2d at 455 (citation

modified).

Despite the distinction between hemp and marijuana, the evidence in this case,

taken in the light most favorable to the State and allowing every reasonable inference

to be drawn therefrom, permits a reasonable juror to conclude that Defendant was

guilty of the charged offenses. See Taylor, 362 N.C. at 538, 669 S.E.2d at 261; see also

-7- STATE V. ARZAMENDIA

State v. Adams, 285 N.C. App. 379, 384, 877 S.E.2d 721, 726 (2022). Applying the

law here, the jury was presented with evidence of the following: Officer Phillips

testified that there was “an evident smell of marijuana when you walked into the

apartment.” See Matias, 354 N.C. at 552, 556 S.E.2d at 271. Further, evidence was

admitted that law enforcement discovered the substance in a vacuum-sealed plastic

bag concealed within a shoebox in a bathroom cabinet. See generally Massey, 287

N.C. App. at 511, 882 S.E.2d at 749. The jury was also presented with evidence of

the quantity of the substance, a net weight of “62.45 plus or minus 0.06 grams.” See

Nettles, 170 N.C. App. at 106, 612 S.E.2d at 176. Additionally, officers recovered a

small scale in the same room where the substance was found. Considering all the

evidence, a reasonable juror could infer the substance was marijuana. See Booth, 286

N.C. App. at 79–80, 879 S.E.2d at 376; see also State v. Adams, 285 N.C. App. 379,

383–84, 877 S.E.2d 721, 725–26 (2022).

Although Defendant does not challenge or argue the remaining elements of the

two charged offenses, we note there is sufficient evidence, in the light most favorable

to the State, to permit a reasonable juror to conclude that Defendant was guilty. See

Taylor, 362 N.C. at 538, 669 S.E.2d at 261; see also Adams, 285 N.C. App. at 384, 877

S.E.2d at 726. The State presented sufficient evidence that Defendant constructively

possessed marijuana. For example, a prescription pill bottle bearing Defendant’s

name was found on the cabinet where the marijuana was located. See State v.

Chekanow, 370 N.C. 488, 496, 809 S.E.2d 546, 552 (2018) (“In determining whether

-8- STATE V. ARZAMENDIA

sufficient incriminating circumstances exist to support a finding of constructive

possession, [courts consider] . . . other evidence found in the defendant’s possession

that links the defendant to the contraband.”). The State also presented sufficient

circumstantial evidence of Defendant’s intent to sell or deliver that controlled

substance. For instance, the quantity of marijuana found, its storage, and the

proximately located small scale. See Wilkins, 208 N.C. App. at 731, 703 S.E.2d at

809; see also Nettles, 170 N.C. App. at 106, 612 S.E.2d at 176. Accordingly, the trial

court properly denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges.

III. Conclusion

For the above reasons, we hold the trial court properly denied Defendant’s

motion to dismiss the charges of felony possession of marijuana and possession with

intent to sell or deliver marijuana.

NO ERROR.

Judge STROUD concurs by separate opinion.

Judge MURRY concurs.

Report per Rule 30(e).

-9- No. COA24-801 – State v. Arzamendia

STROUD, Judge, concurring.

For the reasons I discuss in my concurrence in State v. Hensley, I concur in the

majority opinion except as to any citation of this Court’s unpublished cases. See 254

N.C. App. 173, 183, 802 S.E.2d 744, 751 (2017) (Stroud, J., concurring).