The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for possession of a stolen firearm in *State v. Bracey*, ruling December 12, 2025, that there was substantial evidence the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the gun in his possession was stolen. The decision resolves a key legal question about the knowledge standard required for stolen firearm possession charges.
The case began when Officer Hannah Jackson conducted surveillance in the parking lot of a hotel known by law enforcement as a "hub for illegal activity." After running the license plate of a station wagon, Officer Jackson determined the vehicle belonged to defendant Mack Vernon Bracey, a convicted felon with outstanding arrest warrants.
Officer Jackson monitored the area for several hours until she observed Bracey walk out of the hotel and get into the driver's seat of the car. When Officer Jackson approached the passenger-side door and asked Bracey to exit the vehicle, he refused, saying "I'm not getting out of the car." According to the court record, Bracey began "reaching around" in an apparent attempt to "try to hide things."
When Officer Jackson's partner attempted to open the driver-side door, Bracey "shut the door, put the car in drive, and took off," triggering a police chase. The pursuit involved dangerous driving behavior as Bracey sped through red lights and stop signs, drove into opposing lanes of traffic, evaded police roadblocks, and drove over curbs, medians, and grass for dozens of miles.
The case reached the North Carolina Supreme Court through an appeal from a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed judgments entered January 31, 2023, by Judge Jason C. Disbrow in Superior Court, Brunswick County. The Court of Appeals decision, reported at 297 N.C. App. 136 (2024), upheld the trial court's denial of Bracey's motion to dismiss his charge of possession of a stolen firearm.
Justice Barringer, writing for the Supreme Court, framed the legal issue succinctly: "This case presents a single question: Was there substantial evidence that a criminal defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the gun in his possession was stolen?" The court answered in the affirmative.
The substantial evidence standard requires prosecutors to present enough evidence that a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For stolen firearm possession charges, the state must prove not only that the defendant possessed a stolen firearm, but also that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the firearm was stolen.
This knowledge requirement distinguishes stolen firearm possession from simple firearm possession charges. The prosecution cannot secure a conviction merely by proving the defendant possessed a gun that happened to be stolen; they must demonstrate the defendant's awareness of the gun's stolen status through direct evidence or circumstances that would put a reasonable person on notice.
The Supreme Court's affirmance of the conviction suggests the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to meet this knowledge standard. While the full factual record was not detailed in the available court documents, the case involved a convicted felon found with a firearm during circumstances involving flight from police and apparent attempts to conceal evidence.
The legal representation included Attorney General Jeff Jackson's office, with Deputy Solicitor General James W. Doggett and Chief Deputy Attorney General Laura Howard representing the state. Warren D. Hynson served as counsel for defendant Bracey.
The case proceeded through the standard appellate process, with oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court on September 10, 2025. The appeal was filed pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2), a statute that was repealed in 2023 but remained applicable to cases filed before the repeal.
This decision provides important guidance for prosecutors and defense attorneys handling stolen firearm possession cases in North Carolina. The ruling clarifies that courts will examine the totality of circumstances when determining whether there is substantial evidence of a defendant's knowledge that a firearm was stolen.
For law enforcement, the decision reinforces that successful prosecution of stolen firearm charges requires careful documentation of circumstances that demonstrate the defendant's knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe the firearm was stolen. The case also highlights the intersection between firearm possession charges and other criminal conduct, such as flight from police.
The Supreme Court's decision in *Bracey* joins a body of North Carolina case law addressing firearm possession by convicted felons and the specific requirements for proving knowledge in stolen property cases. The ruling provides clarity for lower courts applying the substantial evidence standard in similar cases.
Defense attorneys will likely scrutinize the specific facts that led the court to conclude there was substantial evidence of knowledge, as this case will serve as precedent for evaluating similar factual scenarios in future stolen firearm prosecutions.