N.C.P.I.—Crim. 258.17

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

prove two things beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that the defendant possessed a catalytic converter that has

been removed from a motor vehicle. A person possesses an item when

the person is aware of its presence, and has (either by [himself] [herself]

or together with others) both the power and intent to control the

disposition or use of that item.

NOTE WELL: If constructive possession of the catalytic

converter is an issue, or if an amplified definition of

actual possession is needed, the trial judge should

refer to N.C.P.I.-Crim 104.41 for further instructions.

And Second, that the defendant acted knowingly.

NOTE WELL: N.C.G.S. § 14-164.1 provides three

exceptions where a defendant may lawfully possess a

catalytic converter removed from a motor vehicle. If

the defendant presents evidence of one or more of

these exceptions (1)-(3) below, the trial judge

should instruct on the relevant subdivision(s) below

with regard to the defendant’s evidence before

proceeding to the final mandate. See e.g., State v.

Carey (“Carey II”), 273 N.C. App. 593, 849 S.E.2d 111

(2020) (holding that, where the evidence supported an

instruction that the defendant was in lawful possession

of a weapon of mass destruction as a contractor for the

military, such evidence was “exculpatory, and not an

underlying element of the offense,” under N.C.G.S. §

288.8(b), and the trial court committed plain error by

not instructing the jury on this defense).

If the defendant does not present evidence of any of

the exceptions (1)-(3) below, then the trial judge

would skip the parenthetical below and go directly to

the final mandate.

(There is evidence in this case tending to show that the defendant

could legally possess a catalytic converter that has been removed from a

motor vehicle. The burden of proving that is on the defendant. It need

not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but only to your satisfaction.

The defendant would not be guilty of possession of a catalytic converter

removed from a motor vehicle if the defendant proves to your satisfaction

that the defendant was, at the time of the possession:

1) [an employee of a company] [an agent of a company] [an

individual] acting in their official duties for a [motor vehicle

dealer] [motor vehicle repair shop] [secondary metals recycler]

[salvage yard] that is licensed, permitted, or registered pursuant

to State law;

2) an individual who possesses vehicle registration documentation

indicating that the catalytic converter in the individual’s

possession is from a vehicle registered in that individual’s name

and [is replaced] [will be replaced] with another legally obtained

catalytic converter; or

3) an individual who possesses a catalytic converter lawfully

received from an individual in subdivision (2) of this section,

proof of vehicle ownership, and a copy of the most recent vehicle

registration documentation for the vehicle from which the

catalytic converter was removed.

The defendant’s assertion that the defendant was in legal

possession of a catalytic converter removed from a motor vehicle for

[this] [these] reason(s) is a denial that the defendant committed any

crime. The burden remains on the State to prove the defendant’s guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the defendant has proven to your satisfaction that the defendant

at the time of the alleged defense was:

1) [an employee of a company] [an agent of a company] [an

individual] acting in their official duties for a [motor vehicle

dealer] [motor vehicle repair shop] [secondary metals recycler]

[salvage yard] that is licensed, permitted, or registered pursuant

to State law;

2) an individual who possesses vehicle registration documentation

indicating that the catalytic converter in the individual’s

possession is from a vehicle registered in that individual’s name

and [is replaced] [will be replaced] with another legally obtained

catalytic converter; or

3) an individual who possesses a catalytic converter lawfully

received from an individual in subdivision (2) of this section,

proof of vehicle ownership, and a copy of the most recent vehicle

registration documentation for the vehicle from which the

catalytic converter was removed,

you will not consider this case further, and it would be your duty to return

a verdict of not guilty. However, if you do not so find then you must

decide if the defendant is guilty of possession of a catalytic converter

removed from a motor vehicle.)

FINAL MANDATE:

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

about the alleged date the defendant knowingly possessed a catalytic

converter that has been removed from a motor vehicle (and none of the

above defenses apply), it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty.

If you do not so find, or have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of

these things, it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.