In State v. Brown, 162 N.C. App. 333, 590 S.E.2d 433 (2004), 162 N.C. App. at 338, 590 S.E.2d at 436-37, the Court held that evidence of telephone conversations between the defendant and the alleged minor victim was insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss because, although the calls were socially inappropriate, "the conversations were neither sexually graphic and explicit nor were they accompanied by other actions tending to show defendant's purpose was sexually motivated." In State v. Cooper, 138 N.C. App. 495 530 S.E.2d 73 (2000), the adult defendant was in the adult victim's presence for five seconds and did not demonstrate a sexual intent. He merely grabbed her elbows and ran when she screamed. Id. In State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 570, 313 S.E.2d 585, 589 (1984), the defendant was arrested when police officers executed a search warrant at an apartment leased by the defendant's brother. Id. at 565, 313 S.E.2d at 586. The police officers discovered defendant in one of the apartment's bedrooms, standing close to a table while the officers found cocaine and numerous drug paraphernalia items. Id. at 564-65, 313 S.E.2d at 586. Defendant possessed a key to his brother's apartment and over $ 1,700 in cash in his pockets. Id. at 565, 313 S.E.2d at 586. Furthermore, the defendant was under surveillance for some period of time prior to his arrest, and every time the police officers observed the defendant, they found him at his brother's apartment rather than his claimed residence. Id. at 569-70, 313 S.E.2d at 589. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that although "defendant was not in exclusive control of the searched premises, there are circumstances other than defendant's proximity to the contraband materials which tend to buttress the inference that defendant was the person engaged in the manufacture of cocaine." Id. at 569, 313 S.E.2d at 589.