State v. Pride
This text of State v. Pride (State v. Pride) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA25-367
Filed 4 February 2026
Guilford County, Nos. 23CR356924-400; 24CR039924-400
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
CARMAINE DEVON PRIDE
Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 12 July 2024 by Judge Stephanie
L. Reese in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13
January 2026.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Assistant Attorney General Phillip H. Liles, for the State-Appellee.
Lebedev Law Services, by Anton M. Lebedev, for Defendant-Appellant.
COLLINS, Judge.
Defendant Carmaine Devon Pride appeals from judgment entered upon a jury
verdict of guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon and his subsequent guilty plea
to having attained habitual‑felon status. Defendant argues that the trial court erred
by denying his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence and excluding an airsoft
gun from evidence. Defendant also argues that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14‑415.1 is facially
unconstitutional. We find no error.
I. Background STATE V. PRIDE
Opinion of the Court
The evidence at trial tended to show the following: In the early morning hours
of 12 July 2023, Defendant returned to the home he shared with his girlfriend,
Natasha Smith, and her children. An argument ensued outside the residence.
Natasha’s cousin, Tabitha, who lived two doors down, heard the commotion and saw
Defendant striking Natasha. When Tabitha intervened, Defendant pushed her and
smashed her cell phone.
After Defendant left in a burgundy Mazda, Tabitha returned home.
Approximately ten minutes later, Defendant returned to Tabitha’s residence and
banged on her door. Tabitha saw Defendant through her screen door holding
“something in his hand” while yelling at her to come outside. She called 911. When
officers from the High Point Police Department arrived at the scene, including Officer
R. Wardlaw, she told him she called 911 and said, “There’s somebody at my door with
a gun.” Tabitha gave police Ring doorbell camera footage. Officer Wardlaw identified
Defendant as the individual seen on the Ring camera footage at Tabitha’s door.
No firearm was recovered. Natasha testified for the defense. She testified that
her son owned an airsoft gun that was kept in her bedroom, but that she had never
seen Defendant with it. The trial court excluded the airsoft gun from evidence when
Defendant sought to introduce it.
The jury found Defendant guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon.
Defendant admitted habitual‑felon status. The trial court sentenced him to 130-168
months in prison. Defendant appealed.
-2- STATE V. PRIDE
II. Discussion
A. Sufficient evidence
Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to
dismiss the possession of a firearm charge for insufficient evidence.
On a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, the question is whether,
viewed in the light most favorable to the State, there is substantial evidence of each
element and of defendant as the perpetrator. State v. Benson, 331 N.C. 537, 544
(1992). Contradictions in testimony are for the jury, not the court, to resolve. Id.
Circumstantial evidence may suffice even if it does not exclude every hypothesis of
innocence. State v. Stone, 323 N.C. 447, 452 (1988). “[W]e review the denial of a
motion to dismiss de novo.” State v. Golder, 374 N.C. 238, 250 (2020) (citation
omitted).
To survive a motion to dismiss a possession of a firearm by a felon charge, the
State must present sufficient evidence of a prior felony conviction and possession of
a firearm thereafter. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-415.1 (2023). Defendant stipulated to the
prior felony.
Tabitha saw Defendant through her screen door holding “something in his
hand” while yelling at her to come outside. She told Officer Wardlaw that she called
911 and said, “There’s somebody at my door with a gun.” Tabitha gave police Ring
doorbell camera footage. Officer Wardlaw identified Defendant as the individual seen
on the Ring camera footage at Tabitha’s door. The jury viewed the video twice during
-3- STATE V. PRIDE
deliberations, including once in slow motion. From Tabitha’s statements, the video,
and the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable juror could infer Defendant
possessed a firearm.
Defendant argues that the State failed to exclude the possibility that he held
an airsoft gun. But the State need not disprove every speculative alternative. State
v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 379 (2000). Moreover, Natasha testified that Defendant left
in his Mazda after the initial confrontation and did not return to the home before
appearing at Tabitha’s door. She also testified she had never seen Defendant possess
the airsoft gun.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was sufficient to
support the possession of a firearm by a felon charge. The trial court properly denied
the motion to dismiss.
B. Exclusion of evidence
Defendant next argues that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding
the airsoft gun from evidence.
We review relevancy determinations with deference, State v. Triplett, 368 N.C.
172, 175 (2015), and Rule 403 rulings for abuse of discretion, State v. Whaley, 362
N.C. 156, 160 (2008).
Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency” to make a consequential fact more
or less probable. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2023). Relevant evidence is
admissible unless rendered inadmissible by the Rules of Evidence. Id. § 8C-1, Rule
-4- STATE V. PRIDE
402 (2023). Rule 403 provides that relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the
issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or
needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Id. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (2023).
Natasha testified that the airsoft gun belonged to her son and was kept in her
bedroom. She also testified that she had never seen Defendant possess it. There was
no evidence Defendant returned to the home to retrieve that airsoft gun before
appearing at Tabitha’s door.
Given the absence of evidence connecting Defendant and the airsoft gun, the
trial court could reasonably have concluded that the exhibit did not make any fact of
consequence more or less probable and thus did not err by excluding it as irrelevant.
Furthermore, even if marginally relevant, the trial court could reasonably have
concluded that its probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of
confusing the issues by inviting the jury to speculate about an object with no
evidentiary link to Defendant. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403. Accordingly, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding it.1
C. Constitutionality of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14‑415.1
1 Defendant has moved this Court to examine the original airsoft gun. We deny Defendant’s motion.
-5- STATE V. PRIDE
Finally, Defendant argues that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14‑415.1 is facially
unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and Article I, Section 30 of the North
Carolina Constitution.
We review constitutional questions de novo. State v. Grady, 372 N.C. 509, 521
(2019).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Pride, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pride-ncctapp-2026.