In State v. Freeman, N.C. App. 690 S.E.2d 17, 20-21 (2010), the Court held that the sale of crack cocaine was not completed because payment was never made for the controlled substance even though the delivery was completed the week prior. Id. at, 690 S.E.2d at 21. The defendant subsequently showed up to collect payment and shot the victim. Id. at, 690 S.E.2d at 19. The Court held that the defendant's actions constituted an attempt to complete the transaction of the sale of cocaine and that it was properly made the basis of submitting the issue of felony murder to the jury. Id. at, 690 S.E.2d at 21. In State v. Freeman, 185 N.C. App. 408, 648 S.E.2d 876 (2007), police in Charlotte arrested an armed robbery suspect, who had in his possession what "looked like a pill bottle." Id. at 410, 648 S.E.2d at 879. This container contained a "variety of white pills," two of which the arresting officer believed to be crack cocaine. Id. at 412, 648 S.E.2d at 880. These two items were tested by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Crime Laboratory and found to be cocaine, having a weight of .22 grams. Id. One of defendant's assignments of error was that the trial court committed plain error by allowing the officer to testify that the two items seized were crack cocaine. Id. at 414, 648 S.E.2d at 881. In light of the lab report confirming that it was cocaine, the admission of the officer's statement was clearly not plain error. However, this Court went on to hold that it was permissible under Rule 701 for the officer to render an opinion that the substance was cocaine. Id. at 415, 648 S.E.2d at 882. In Freeman, the substance involved was crack cocaine, not powdered cocaine. A review of the opinion, briefs and record in that case does not reveal anything about the appearance of the cocaine other than to describe it as "pills." Two of the "pills" were distinctive enough from the other pills in the bottle for the arresting officer to immediately identify them as crack cocaine. The appearance of the cocaine in Freeman simply was not a major concern in the case because the laboratory report conclusively established the chemical composition of the substance. Crack cocaine has a distinctive color, texture, and appearance. While it might be permissible, based upon these characteristics, for an officer to render a lay opinion as to crack cocaine, it cannot be permissible to render such an opinion as to a non-descript white powder.