by precluding a defendant from raising an alternative perpetrator defense). 2. Legal Standard Because the legal framework applicable to alternative perpetrator evidence is set out at length in Jordan, this court need do no more than summarize the law. The Supreme Court has noted that special considerations arise when a court is faced with a defense theory of an alternative perpetrator: “Evidence tending to show the commission by another person of the crime charged may be introduced by accused when it is inconsistent with, and raises a reasonable doubt of, his own guilt; but frequently matters offered in evidence for this purpose are so remote and lack such connection with the crime that they are excluded.” Holmes, 547 U.S. at 327, 126 S.Ct. 1727 (quotation omitted); see also id. (<HOLDING>). As this court explained in MeVeigh: Although
holding that for sentencing purposes the government does not need to allege a defendants prior conviction or prove the fact of a prior conviction where that fact is not an element of the present crime holding that under rule 401 of the north carolina rules of evidence ejvidence that another committed the crime for which the defendant is charged generally is relevant and admissible as long as it does more than create an inference or conjecture in this regard it must point directly to the guilt of the other party under rule 401 such evidence must tend both to implicate another and be inconsistent with the guilt of the defendant holding that evidence of judicial bias does not satisfy section 2244b2b because it does not add to or subtract from the evidence of  guilt holding that thirdparty guilt evidence may also be excluded where it does not sufficiently connect the other person to the crime as for example where the evidence is speculative or remote or does not tend to prove or disprove a material fact in issue at the defendants trial quotation omitted holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence relating to a purported additional suspect where the evidence was speculative and had little or no probative value