fundamental error in North Carolina

2026App. 199 , 205 (2025). “[T]o demonstrate that a trial court committed plain error, the defendant must show ‘that a fundamental error occurred at trial.’ ” State v. Maddux, 371 N.C. 558, 564 (2018) (quoting State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518 (2012)).

2026Under plain-error review, “a defendant must demonstrate that a fundamental error occurred at trial” by showing that (1) “the trial court fundamentally erred”; (2) “the jury probably would have returned a different verdict” “absent the error”; and (3) the error “seriously affect[ed] ‘the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” State v. Reber, 386 N.C. 153 , 150 (2024) (quoting State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 , 518–19 (2012)).

2026To establish plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that (1) a fundamental error occurred at trial, (2) the error was prejudicial, having a “probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty,” and (3) the error “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings” so as to constitute “a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 , 517–18 (2012) (quoting State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 (1983)).

2026To establish plain error, “a defendant must demonstrate that a fundamental error occurred at trial[]” and the reviewing court “must examine the entire record [to] determine if the . . . error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518 , 723 S.E.2d 326, 334 (2012); State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 661 , 300 S.E.2d 375 , 378–79 (1983).

2024REBER Earls, J., dissenting constitutes a fundamental error is broad and has been defined as: (1) “something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done”; or (2) “the error is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused”; or (3) “the error has resulted in” either “a miscarriage of justice or in the denial . . . of a fair trial” for the accused; or (4) the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”; or (5) where “the instructional mistake had a probable impact on the

2019Plain error arises when there is "a fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done[.]" State v. Odom , 307 N.C. 655 , 660, 300 S.E.2d 375 , 378 (1983) (quoting United States v. McCaskill , 676 F.2d 995 , 1002 (4th Cir. 1982) ).

2020It is well established that the fundamental principle underlying North Carolina’s approach to controversies involving child custody is that “the best interest of the child is the polar star.” In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 109 , 316 S.E.2d 246, 251 (1984).

2020It is well established that the fundamental principle underlying North Carolina’s approach to controversies involving child custody is that “the best interest of the child is the polar star.” In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 109 , 316 S.E.2d 246, 251 (1984).

2019It is correct that "the fundamental rule is that the intention of the parties governs, and that their intention must be gathered from study and consideration of all the covenants contained in the instrument or instruments creating the restrictions." Long , 271 N.C. at 268 , 156 S.E.2d at 238 (citation omitted).

2019It is correct that "the fundamental rule is that the intention of the parties governs, and that their intention must be gathered from study and consideration of all the covenants contained in the instrument or instruments creating the restrictions." Long , 271 N.C. at 268 , 156 S.E.2d at 238 (citation omitted).

2023“Plain error includes error that is a fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done; or grave error that amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused; or error that has resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appellant of a fair trial.” State v. Gregory, 342 N.C. 580, 586 , 467 S.E.2d 28, 32 (1996) (citation omitted).

2023“Plain error includes error that is a fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done; or grave error that amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused; or error that has resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appellant of a fair trial.” State v. Gregory, 342 N.C. 580, 586 , 467 S.E.2d 28, 32 (1996) (citation omitted).

2008App. 584, 587 , 614 S.E.2d 313, 315 (2005). [T]he plain error rule ... is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is a fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done, or where [the error] is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused, or the error has resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appellant of a fair trial or where the error is such as to seriously affect the fairness

2008App. 584, 587 , 614 S.E.2d 313, 315 (2005). [T]he plain error rule ... is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is a fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done, or where [the error] is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused, or the error has resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appellant of a fair trial or where the error is such as to seriously affect the fairness

2026“To establish plain error defendant must show that a fundamental error occurred at his trial and that the error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that defendant was guilty.” Id. (citing State v. Towe, 366 N.C. 56, 62 , 732 S.E.2d 564, 568 (2012)).

2026“To establish plain error defendant must show that a fundamental error occurred at his trial and that the error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that defendant was guilty.” Id. (citing State v. Towe, 366 N.C. 56, 62 , 732 S.E.2d 564, 568 (2012)).

2018"Under the plain error rule, defendant must convince this Court not only that *737 there was error, but that absent the error, the jury probably would have reached a different result." State v. Jordan , 333 N.C. 431 , 440, 426 S.E.2d 692 , 697 (1993) (citation omitted). *561 The plain error standard requires a defendant to demonstrate that a fundamental error occurred at trial.

2018"Under the plain error rule, defendant must convince this Court not only that *737 there was error, but that absent the error, the jury probably would have reached a different result." State v. Jordan , 333 N.C. 431 , 440, 426 S.E.2d 692 , 697 (1993) (citation omitted). *561 The plain error standard requires a defendant to demonstrate that a fundamental error occurred at trial.

2020“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Id. at 333 , 47 L.

2020“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Id. at 333 , 47 L.

2018"Generally speaking, the [plain error] rule provides that a criminal defendant is entitled to a new trial if the defendant demonstrates that the jury probably would have returned a different verdict had the error not occurred." State v. Lawrence , 365 N.C. 506 , 507, 723 S.E.2d 326 , 327 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing State v. Walker , 316 N.C. 33 , 39, 340 S.E.2d 80 , 83 (1986) ). "[P]lain error review ... is normally limited to instructional and evidentiary error." Id. at 516, 723 S.E.2d at 333 (citing State v. Wiley , 355 N.C. 592 , 615, 565 S.E.2d 22 , 39-40 (2002), cert. denied , 537 U.S

2018"Generally speaking, the [plain error] rule provides that a criminal defendant is entitled to a new trial if the defendant demonstrates that the jury probably would have returned a different verdict had the error not occurred." State v. Lawrence , 365 N.C. 506 , 507, 723 S.E.2d 326 , 327 (2012) (emphasis added) (citing State v. Walker , 316 N.C. 33 , 39, 340 S.E.2d 80 , 83 (1986) ). "[P]lain error review ... is normally limited to instructional and evidentiary error." Id. at 516, 723 S.E.2d at 333 (citing State v. Wiley , 355 N.C. 592 , 615, 565 S.E.2d 22 , 39-40 (2002), cert. denied , 537 U.S

2025Mistrial “It is a fundamental principle of the common law, guaranteed by our Federal and State Constitutions, that no person may be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense.” State v. Shuler, 293 N.C. 34, 42 , 235 S.E.2d 226, 231 (1977) (citations omitted); see U.S. Const. amend.

2025Mistrial “It is a fundamental principle of the common law, guaranteed by our Federal and State Constitutions, that no person may be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense.” State v. Shuler, 293 N.C. 34, 42 , 235 S.E.2d 226, 231 (1977) (citations omitted); see U.S. Const. amend.

2025App. at 302, 872 S.E.2d at 601 (citation omitted); State v. Thacker, 301 N.C. 348 , 351– 52, 271 S.E.2d 252, 255 (1980) (internal citation omitted) (“While it is a fundamental principle that an indigent defendant in a serious criminal prosecution must have counsel appointed to represent him, an indigent defendant does not have the right to have counsel of his choice appointed to represent him.”).

2025App. at 302, 872 S.E.2d at 601 (citation omitted); State v. Thacker, 301 N.C. 348 , 351– 52, 271 S.E.2d 252, 255 (1980) (internal citation omitted) (“While it is a fundamental principle that an indigent defendant in a serious criminal prosecution must have counsel appointed to represent him, an indigent defendant does not have the right to have counsel of his choice appointed to represent him.”).

2010See id. 10(b)(4) (2008); State v. Jones, 355 N.C. 117, 125 , 558 S.E.2d 97, 102-03 (2002). 2 In reviewing for plain error, this Court has stated that: “[T]he plain error rule ... is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire *594 record, it can be said the claimed error is a fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done, or where [the error] is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused, or the error has resulted in a miscarriage of jus

2010See id. 10(b)(4) (2008); State v. Jones, 355 N.C. 117, 125 , 558 S.E.2d 97, 102-03 (2002). 2 In reviewing for plain error, this Court has stated that: “[T]he plain error rule ... is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire *594 record, it can be said the claimed error is a fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done, or where [the error] is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused, or the error has resulted in a miscarriage of jus

2026App. 199 , 205 (2025). “[T]o demonstrate that a trial court committed plain error, the defendant must show ‘that a fundamental error occurred at trial.’ ” State v. Maddux, 371 N.C. 558, 564 (2018) (quoting State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518 (2012)).

2025SIMMONS Opinion of the Court fundamental error, a defendant ‘must establish prejudice—that, after examination of the entire record, the error ‘had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.’” State v. Maddux, 371 N.C. 558, 564 , 819 S.E.2d 367, 371 (2018) (citations omitted).

2020Rouse & Co., 331 N.C. 88, 94 , 414 S.E.2d 30, 34 (1992) (“[I]t is a fundamental rule of contract construction that the courts construe an ambiguous contract in a manner that gives effect to all of its provisions, if the court is reasonably able to do so.” (citing Woods, 295 N.C. at 505–06, 246 S.E.2d at 777 )). 29.

2020Rouse & Co., 331 N.C. 88, 94 , 414 S.E.2d 30, 34 (1992) (“[I]t is a fundamental rule of contract construction that the courts construe an ambiguous contract in a manner that gives effect to all of its provisions, if the court is reasonably able to do so.” (citing Woods, 295 N.C. at 505–06, 246 S.E.2d at 777 )). 29.

2025Plain error exists “only in exceptional cases where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is a fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done.” State v. Hammett, 361 N.C. 92, 98 , 637 S.E.2d 518, 522 (2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2025Plain error exists “only in exceptional cases where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is a fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done.” State v. Hammett, 361 N.C. 92, 98 , 637 S.E.2d 518, 522 (2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2025See also State v. Cummings, 352 N.C. 600, 636 (2000); State v. Walker, 316 N.C. 33, 39 (1986).

2025See also State v. Cummings, 352 N.C. 600, 636 (2000); State v. Walker, 316 N.C. 33, 39 (1986).

2025Additionally, “it is a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation that courts should ‘evaluate [a] statute as a whole and . . . not construe an individual section in a manner that renders another provision of the same statute meaningless.” Lunsford v. Mills, 367 N.C. 618, 628 , 766 S.E.2d 297, 304 (2014) (alterations in original) (citation omitted).

2025Additionally, “it is a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation that courts should ‘evaluate [a] statute as a whole and . . . not construe an individual section in a manner that renders another provision of the same statute meaningless.” Lunsford v. Mills, 367 N.C. 618, 628 , 766 S.E.2d 297, 304 (2014) (alterations in original) (citation omitted).

2022See State v. Bell, 184 N.C. 701, 705 (1922) (“Scrupulously observing the constitutional separation of the legislative and the supreme judicial powers of the government, we adhere to the fundamental principle that it is the duty of the Court, not to make the law, but to expound it, and to that end to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature . . . .”). ¶ 53 The second requirement of Rule 9(j) is clear: at the time of filing, a plaintiff must have secured an expert willing to testify that each defendant health care MILLER V.

2022See State v. Bell, 184 N.C. 701, 705 (1922) (“Scrupulously observing the constitutional separation of the legislative and the supreme judicial powers of the government, we adhere to the fundamental principle that it is the duty of the Court, not to make the law, but to expound it, and to that end to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature . . . .”).

2024The standard articulated in Lawrence, Towe, Juarez, and Maddux, while focusing in part on the “probable impact” of the error on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty, also emphasizes the need to analyze an error to determine if a fundamental error exists, which is dependent on whether prejudice is established, and whether the error is one “that seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 518 (cleaned up); see Towe, 366 N.C. at 62 ; Juarez, 369 N.C. at 358 ; Maddux, 371 N.C at -35- STATE V.

2020CORBETT & MARTENS Opinion of the Court defendant is only entitled to argue that the delivery of the ‘aggressor’ instruction constituted plain error, under which [the] defendant is not entitled to an award of appellate relief on the basis of the alleged error unless he can demonstrate that a fundamental error occurred at trial that had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty[.]” (citations, quotation marks, and footnote omitted)), and Juarez, 369 N.C. at 358-59 , 794 S.E.2d at 300 (concluding that it was “not necessary . . . to decide whether an instruction on the

2020The majority opinion is at odds with the fundamental principle that “[t]he jury’s role is to weigh evidence, assess witness credibility, assign probative value to the evidence and testimony, and determine what the evidence proves or fails to prove.” State v. Moore, 366 N.C. 100, 108 , 726 S.E.2d 168, 174 (2012) (citations omitted).

2020The majority opinion is at odds with the fundamental principle that “[t]he jury’s role is to weigh evidence, assess witness credibility, assign probative value to the evidence and testimony, and determine what the evidence proves or fails to prove.” State v. Moore, 366 N.C. 100, 108 , 726 S.E.2d 168, 174 (2012) (citations omitted).