N.C.P.I.—Crim. 260.16

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

prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that the defendant knowingly possessed (name substance).1

(Name substance) is a controlled substance. A person possesses (name

substance) when the person is aware of its presence and has, (either by

[himself] [herself] [together with others]), both the power and intent to

control the disposition or use of that substance.2

NOTE WELL: If constructive possession of the controlled

substance 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.

Second, that the defendant possessed (name substance) with the

intent to [manufacture]3 [sell] [deliver]4 it.

And Third, (instruct as to aggravating condition; see N.C.P.I.-Crim.

260.45).

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

about the alleged date, the defendant knowingly possessed (name

substance) with the intent to [manufacture] [sell] [deliver] it and that

(describe aggravating condition), it would be your duty to return a verdict of

guilty of possessing (name substance), with the intent to [manufacture]

[sell] [deliver] it, (describe aggravating condition). If you do not so find or if

you have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, you will not

return a verdict of guilty of possessing (name substance), with intent to

[manufacture] [sell] [deliver] it, (describe aggravating condition),5 but

would consider whether the defendant is guilty of possessing (name

substance), with intent to [manufacture] [sell] [deliver] it.

Possessing (name substance), with intent to [manufacture] [sell]

[deliver] does not require proof that (describe aggravating condition).

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

about the alleged date, the defendant knowingly possessed (name

substance) with the intent to [manufacture] [sell] [deliver] it, it would be

your duty to return a verdict of guilty of possessing (name substance), with

the intent to [manufacture] [sell] [deliver] it. If you do not so find or if you

have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, you will not

return a verdict of guilty of possessing (name substance), with intent to

[manufacture] [sell] [deliver] it,6 but would consider whether the defendant

is guilty of possessing (name substance) (describe aggravating condition).

Possessing (name substance), (describe aggravating condition) differs

from possessing (name substance) with the intent to [manufacture] [sell]

[deliver] it, in that the State need not prove that the defendant intended to

[manufacture] [sell] [deliver] the (name substance). The State must prove

two things beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that the defendant knowingly possessed (name substance).

And Second, (describe aggravating condition).7

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

about the alleged date, the defendant knowingly possessed (name

substance) and that (describe aggravating condition) it would be your duty

to return a verdict of guilty of possession of (name substance), (describe

aggravating condition). If you do not so find or if you have a reasonable

doubt as to one or both of these things you will not return a verdict of guilty

of possession of (name substance), (describe aggravating condition), but

would consider whether the defendant is guilty of possession of (name

substance).

Possession of (name substance) does not require proof that (describe

aggravating condition).

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

about (name date), the defendant knowingly possessed (name substance), it

would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty of possession of (name

substance). 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.