N.C.P.I.—Crim. 216.48B

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must

prove five things beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that the controlled substance1 was stolen from a pharmacy.2

Property is stolen when it is taken and carried away without the owner's

consent by someone who intends at the time to deprive the owner of its

use permanently and knows that he is not entitled to take it. (Name

substance) is a controlled substance.)

Second, that this controlled substance was stolen pursuant to a

breaking or entering of a pharmacy.3 Breaking or entering is the breaking

into or entering into another's building, including a pharmacy, without the

[owner’s] [tenant’s] consent.

Third, that the defendant possessed the property. One has

possession of property when one has both the power and intent to control

its disposition or use.

NOTE WELL: When constructive possession is at issue

or when a fuller definition of actual possession is

desired, incorporate the relevant portions of N.C.P.I.–

Crim. 104.41 at this point.

Fourth, that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to

believe that the controlled substance had been stolen.

And Fifth, that the defendant possessed it with a dishonest

purpose. (Describe purpose, e.g., "Converting it to his own use") would

be a dishonest purpose.

If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or

about the alleged date a controlled substance was stolen from a

pharmacy, that it was stolen pursuant to a breaking or entering of a

pharmacy, that the defendant possessed this controlled substance for a

dishonest purpose, and that the defendant knew or had reasonable

grounds to believe that this controlled substance was stolen, it would be

your duty to return a verdict of guilty. If you do not so find or if you have

a reasonable doubt as to any of these things, it would be your duty to

return a verdict of not guilty.4