intent to sell or deliver. This charge requires that the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance found in defendant’s jacket was in fact cocaine. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(a)(l) (2009). The only other evidence presented at trial identifying the substance as cocaine was the testimony of Officer Tucker. At trial, Officer Tucker testified that he checked the pocket of defendant’s jacket and found “twenty two individual rocks of crack cocaine.” Visual identification, even by a trained police officer such as Officer Tucker with four years of experience, is not enough to identify beyond a reasonable doubt a substance chemically defined by our legislature. State v. Ward, 364 N.C. 133, 142-43, 694 S.E.2d 738, 743-44 (2010); State v. Williams, 10-58-1 (N.C. App. Dec. 7, 2010) (<HOLDING>); State v. Nabors, - N.C. App. -, -, 700 S.E.2d
holding that knowledge that a substance is a controlled substance is an element of  952 holding that lay witness testimony regardless of credentials and experience is insufficient to prove the identity of a controlled substance holding that possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is controlled substance offense holding that mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance