The 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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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. COA 25-401
Filed 4 March 2026
Edgecombe County, Nos. 23CR345068-320, 23CR345070-320
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
SILENCE MAURICE HINTON
Appeal by Defendant-Appellant from Judgment entered 20 November 2024 by
Judge William D. Wolfe in Edgecombe County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of
Appeals 12 January 2026.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Assistant Attorney General Caroline Koenig,
for the State of North Carolina.
The Sweet Law Firm, PLLC, by Kaelyn N. Sweet, for Defendant-Appellant.
PER CURIAM.
Factual and Procedural Background
Defendant Silence Hinton (Defendant) appeals from Judgments entered upon
jury verdicts convicting him of Possession of Methamphetamine and Resisting a
Public Officer. On appeal, Defendant only challenges his conviction for Possession of
STATE V. HINTON
Opinion of the Court
Methamphetamine. The Record on Appeal, including the evidence presented at trial,
tends to reflect the following:
On 28 June 28 2023, Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by
Tarboro Police Department Chief Rick Mann. Chief Mann smelled an odor of
marijuana from the vehicle and observed two firearms inside. He ordered Defendant
to exit the vehicle and lie down. Defendant, instead, fled on foot. Officers apprehended
Defendant and, while searching him incident to the arrest, found pills in Defendant’s
pocket which Defendant identified as “E pills.” Later forensic testing on one pill
revealed it contained methamphetamine.
Defendant was charged with both Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent
to Sell or Deliver (“PWISD”) and Possession of Methamphetamine. Defendant was
additionally charged with Trafficking Opium/Heroin, misdemeanor Possession of
Marijuana, Carrying a Concealed Weapon, and Resisting a Public Officer. The State
voluntarily dismissed the trafficking charge before trial, and the trial court allowed
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the marijuana charge at the close of the State’s case.
Defendant also moved to dismiss the PWISD charge, arguing the State had
failed to show Defendant intended to sell or deliver methamphetamine. The trial
court denied Defendant’s Motion.
During the charge conference, the trial court informed the parties it intended
to give a combined instruction for PWISD with simple possession as a lesser-included
offense. Neither party objected, and the trial court instructed the jury:
-2-
STATE V. HINTON
Opinion of the Court
The defendant has been charged with possessing
methamphetamine with the intent to sell and deliver it.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense the State
must Prove two things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that the defendant knowingly possessed
methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is a controlled
substance. A person possesses methamphetamine when
the person is aware of its presence and has both the power
and intent to control the disposition or use of that
substance.
And Second that the defendant intended to sell or deliver
methamphetamine. Intent is seldom, if ever provable by
direct evidence. It must ordinarily be proved by
circumstances from which it may be inferred. If you find
from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or
about the alleged date the defendant knowingly possessed
methamphetamine and intended to sell or deliver it, it
would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty of
possession of methamphetamine with the intent to sell or
deliver.
If you do not so find or if you have a reasonable doubt as to
one or both of these things, you would not return a verdict
of guilty of possessing methamphetamine with the intent
to sell or deliver it, but would consider whether the
defendant is guilty of possessing methamphetamine.
Possessing methamphetamine does not require proof that
the defendant intended to sell or deliver.
If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt
that on or about the alleged date the defendant knowingly
possessed methamphetamine, it would be your duty to
return a verdict of guilty of possessing methamphetamine.
If you do not so find or if you have a reasonable doubt, it
would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
The jury found Defendant guilty of the lesser-included charge of Possession of
Methamphetamine and of Resisting a Public Officer. It found Defendant not guilty of
-3-
STATE V. HINTON
Opinion of the Court
the remaining charges. The trial court sentenced Defendant to 6 to 17 months for
Possession of Methamphetamine and a consecutive 60 day sentence for Resisting a
Public Officer. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal in open court following
sentencing.
Issue
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court reversibly erred in denying
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the charge of PWISD, notwithstanding the fact the
jury convicted Defendant of the lesser-included offense of Possession of
Methamphetamine.
Analysis
“This Court reviews the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss de novo.”
State v. Smith, 186 N.C. App. 57, 62, 650 S.E.2d 29, 33 (2007) (citation omitted).
“Upon [a] defendant's motion for dismissal, the question for the Court is whether
there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged, or
of a lesser offense included therein, and (2) of defendant's being the perpetrator of
such offense. If so, the motion is properly denied.” State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 378,
526 S.E.2d 451, 455 (2000) (citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 566, 313 S.E.2d 585, 587 (1984) (citation omitted). “If
the evidence is sufficient only to raise a suspicion or conjecture as to either the
commission of the offense or the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of it, the
-4-
STATE V. HINTON
Opinion of the Court
motion [to dismiss] should be allowed.” Fritsch, 351 N.C. at 378, 526 S.E.2d at 455
(citation omitted).
“In making its determination, the trial court must consider all evidence
admitted, whether competent or incompetent, in the light most favorable to the State,
giving the State the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving any
contradictions in its favor.” State v. Rose, 339 N.C. 172, 192, 451 S.E.2d 211, 223
(1994) (citation omitted). “Whether the State has offered such substantial evidence is
a question of law for the trial court.” State v. McKinney, 288 N.C. 113, 119, 215 S.E.2d
578, 583 (1975) (citations omitted). “If there is substantial evidence of each element
of the offense charged, or any lesser included offenses, the trial court must deny the
motion to dismiss and submit the charges to the jury for its consideration.” State v.
Abraham, 338 N.C. 315, 328, 451 S.E.2d 131, 137 (1994).
On appeal, Defendant does not argue there was insufficient evidence to support
his conviction for the lesser-included offense of Possession of Methamphetamine.
Rather, Defendant contends the State failed to produce sufficient evidence of the
greater charge that Defendant intended to sell or deliver methamphetamine.
Defendant asserts the trial court should have allowed his Motion to Dismiss and
dismissed both the charge of Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Sell
or Deliver, and the lesser-included offense of Possession of Methamphetamine.
However, even assuming, arguendo, there was insufficient evidence of intent
to sell or deliver methamphetamine, “any error in submission to the jury of the
-5-
STATE V. HINTON
Opinion of the Court
greater offense was rendered harmless by the jury’s verdict convicting [D]efendant of
the lesser offense.” State v. Williams, 154 N.C. App. 176, 181, 571 S.E.2d 619, 622
(2002). Indeed, Defendant does not contest the evidence supporting his conviction of
Possession of Methamphetamine.
Thus, here, where the jury returned a guilty verdict on the lesser-included
offense of Possession of Methamphetamine, any error in submitting the greater
offense of Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent to Sell or Deliver was
harmless. Therefore, the trial court did not reversibly err in denying Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss. Consequently, the trial court properly entered Judgment upon
the jury’s verdicts.
Conclusion
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, there was no reversible error at trial
and the Judgments are affirmed.
NO ERROR.
Panel consisting of Judges ARROWOOD, COLLINS, HAMPSON.
Report per Rule 30(e).
-6-