The North Carolina Supreme Court has affirmed a conviction for possession of a stolen firearm, ruling that the State presented “substantial evidence” that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known the weapon was stolen. The decision hinged on interpreting the totality of the defendant’s actions—including an extreme police chase and the specific manner in which he hid the weapon—as leading to a logical inference of guilty knowledge.
The case centered on Mack Vernon Bracey, who was charged with several offenses, including possession of a stolen firearm. Bracey challenged his conviction by arguing that the evidence only supported his guilt for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, but not necessarily that he knew the gun was stolen.
Dramatic Flight and Concealment
The facts presented by the State began when police located Bracey, a convicted felon with outstanding warrants, in the parking lot of a hotel known for illegal activity. When officers approached his car, Bracey refused to exit and instead initiated a perilous, high-speed chase.
The pursuit involved Bracey driving recklessly at speeds exceeding 100 mph, running red lights, evading roadblocks, and ultimately crashing his car into two trees before attempting to flee on foot through dense, swampy terrain until he could run no further.
When initially questioned about the flight, Bracey claimed he was only trying to get a hit of cocaine. However, police suspected otherwise after spotting an empty gun holster near the driver’s seat. A subsequent, carefully worded exchange with Officer Hannah Jackson—where the officer falsely claimed they found the gun in the woods—resulted in Bracey denying the gun’s existence entirely, leading the officer to believe the weapon was deliberately hidden.
A search of Bracey’s impounded car revealed a loaded .38 Special revolver concealed inside a hollow space behind a plastic panel near the steering wheel. The gun’s serial number check confirmed it was stolen.
The Crux of the Legal Issue: Knowledge
To secure a conviction for felony possession of a stolen firearm, the State must prove five elements, the most contested of which here was the fifth: that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the firearm was stolen.
Bracey appealed to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals upheld his conviction, arguing that his flight and the gun’s concealment could be attributed solely to his status as a felon trying to avoid arrest on that charge, not necessarily knowledge of the gun’s stolen status.
The Supreme Court addressed this by reviewing the “substantial evidence” standard required to deny a motion to dismiss. This standard requires evidence that is “existing and real, not just seeming or imaginary,” and enough to persuade a rational juror of guilt, even if the evidence is entirely circumstantial. Crucially, the court noted that it must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and does not need to eliminate every alternative hypothesis of innocence.
Flight as Evidence of Consciousness of Guilt
Writing for the majority, Justice Barringer emphasized that flight, especially extreme flight, is powerful evidence of consciousness of guilt. While acknowledging Bracey had reasons to flee (felon-in-possession), the court held that his intense, desperate flight could reasonably infer knowledge related to the stolen firearm charge as well.
“To survive dismissal,” the opinion stated, “The evidence need only be sufficient to support a reasonable inference that defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the gun was stolen.”
Concealment Tactics Bolster the Inference
Beyond the chase, the manner of concealment was significant. The majority distinguished Bracey’s actions from “mere storage.” Hiding the gun behind a dislodged plastic panel under the steering wheel, rather than using a standard storage compartment like a glove box, suggested active concealment.
Perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence, according to the majority, was Bracey’s selective hiding of items. While he went to great lengths to hide the gun, he left the empty “Sticky-brand” holster in plain sight. The court reasoned that if Bracey were only trying to hide his felon status, he likely would have hidden the holster as well. His decision to hide the gun but not the holster suggested he knew the *gun itself* was the particular object that would incriminate him regarding theft.
Dissent Argues Against Stacking Inferences
Justice Earls authored a vigorous dissent, arguing that the majority engaged in an inappropriate “stacking inference upon inference.” The dissent agreed that Bracey’s flight and concealment proved he knew he was criminally liable for *something* (felony possession), but argued this was not “substantial evidence” that he knew the gun was *stolen*.
Justice Earls pointed to previous cases where knowledge of stolen goods was proven through specific transactional irregularities (like selling a new car for $800 without a title) or active efforts to disguise the contraband (like scratching off a serial number). In Bracey’s case, no serial number was altered, and there was no evidence of how he acquired the gun.
The dissent argued that when multiple crimes are plausible, flight evidence should not automatically be used to support the element of every potential crime. If Bracey had not been a felon, the flight and concealment might suffice for the stolen property charge, but because the felony charge provided an equally reasonable explanation for his actions, the evidence only amounted to “suspicion or conjecture” regarding the theft element, which is insufficient for conviction.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court majority sided with the Court of Appeals, affirming the denial of the motion to dismiss and sending the case back for conviction on all counts.