With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". fatal to the indictment. See State v. Cathey, 162 N.C. App. 350, 353, 590 S.E.2d 408, 410 (2004). The inclusion of Pastor Stephens as co-owner does not cure the omission here. Where an indictment alleges two owners of the stolen property, the State must prove that each owner had at least some property interest in it. See State v. Greene, 289 N.C. 578, 585, 223 S.E.2d 365, 370 (1976) (“If the person alleged in the indictment to have a property interest in the stolen property is not the owner or special owner of it, there is a fatal variance entitling defendant to a nonsuit.”); State v. Burgess, 74 N.C. 272, 273 (1876) (“If one is charged with stealing the property of A, it will not do to prove that he stole the joint property of A and B.”); State v. Hill, 79 N.C. 656, 659 (1878) (<HOLDING>). If one of the owners were incapable of owning

A: holding in cases involving multiple victims that allowing multiple sentencing  does not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendants conduct and the double sentence seems commensurate with defendants increased culpability
B: holding that when an indictment alleges nonessential facts the government need not prove them in order to sustain a conviction
C: holding that where an indictment alleges multiple owners the state must prove that there were in fact multiple owners
D: holding that multiple sentences for offenses under 18 usc  924c are appropriate when multiple separate acts of firearm use have occurred even if they are related to the same underlying offense
C.