62, 66, 296 S.E.2d 649, 652 (1982) (quoting State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78-79, 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980)). Defendant argues that the State did not mee y admitted, did provide chemical evidence that the substance found in defendant’s jacket was cocaine, thus providing substantial evidence, for the purpose of defendant’s motion, that the substance possessed was indeed cocaine. Defendant also claims the motion to dismiss should have been granted because the State produced no evidence that he intended to sell or deliver the cocaine. However, Officer Tucker testified that the packaging of the substance was indicative that it was being held for sale and, therefore, there was circumstantial evidence of an intent to sell. See State v. Carr, 122 N.C. App. 369, 373, 470 S.E.2d 70, 73 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Because we have determined that defendant is
holding defendant could only be sentenced to a single offense under section 1244011 not both conspiracy with intent to deliver and possession with intent to deliver holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance holding that mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance holding that possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is controlled substance offense holding that the manner a controlled substance is packaged may be considered in establishing intent to sell and deliver