its burden to present substantial evidence of all the elements of possession with intent to sell or deliver, because the admission of and testimony about the Charlesworth report was admitted in error, and Officer Tucker’s testimony standing alone was not sufficient to prove the chemical makeup of the substance. When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court is to consider “all of the evidence actually admitted, whether competent or incompetent.” State v. Vause, 328 N.C. 231, 237, 400 S.E.2d 57, 61 (1991). “[T]he fact that some of the evidence was erroneously admitted by the trial court is not a sufficient basis for granting a motion to dismiss.” State v. Jones, 342 N.C. 523, 540, 467 S.E.2d 12, 23 (1996); see also State v. Morton, 166 N.C. App. 477, 482, 601 S.E.2d 873, 876 (2004) (<HOLDING>). The Charlesworth report, even though
holding that documents integral to the complaint are properly considered on a motion to dismiss holding that a court ruling on a motion to dismiss may consider a document that is referenced in the complaint and is central to the plaintiffs claims recognizing that statute of limitations questions may be resolved on a motion to dismiss holding that statements in motions and briefs are not evidence to be considered in ruling on a motion to compel arbitration holding that erroneously admitted evidence may be considered when ruling on a motion to dismiss