fundamental error in North Carolina

2026A fundamental error is “ ‘something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done . . . or where it can be fairly said the instructional mistake had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.’ ” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 , 516-17, 723 S.E.2d 326, 333 (2012) (quoting State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983)).

2026A fundamental error is “ ‘something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done . . . or where it can be fairly said the instructional mistake had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.’ ” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 , 516-17, 723 S.E.2d 326, 333 (2012) (quoting State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983)).

2026A fundamental error is “ ‘something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done . . . or where it can be fairly said the instructional mistake had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.’ ” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 , 516-17, 723 S.E.2d 326, 333 (2012) (quoting State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983)).

2026A fundamental error is “ ‘something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done . . . or where it can be fairly said the instructional mistake had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.’ ” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 , 516-17, 723 S.E.2d 326, 333 (2012) (quoting State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983)).

2024There, this Court explained, that while the plain error standard’s protections are only applicable in “exceptional” cases, where “it can be said . . . a fundamental error” has occurred, what -32- 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) th

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) ).

2020See In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. at 109 , 316 S.E.2d at 251 (emphasizing that “the fundamental principle underlying North Carolina’s approach to controversies involving child neglect and custody [is] that the best interest of the child is the polar star”).

2020See In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. at 109 , 316 S.E.2d at 251 (emphasizing that “the fundamental principle underlying North Carolina’s approach to controversies involving child neglect and custody [is] that the best interest of the child is the polar star”).

2026No plain error Plain error involves a “three-factor test,” requiring a defendant to prove three elements to establish plain error: (1) “that a fundamental error occurred at trial”; (2) that “absent the error, the jury probably would have returned a different verdict”; and (3) “that the error is an ‘exceptional case’ that warrants plain error review[.]” State v. Reber, 386 N.C. 153 , 158 (2024) (citation omitted).

2026In demonstrating plain error, the defendant bears the burden to show: (1) “a fundamental error occurred at trial,” (2) “the error had a ‘probable impact’ on the outcome,” and (3) “the error is an ‘exceptional case’ that warrants plain error review.” Reber, 386 N.C. at 158 (citing Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 518-19).

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. Ed. 2d at 32 (citation omitted). “‘[D]ue process,’ unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances.” “[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Accordingly, resolution of the issue whether the administrative procedures provided here are constitutionally sufficient requires analysis of the governmental and private inte

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. Ed. 2d at 32 (citation omitted). “‘[D]ue process,’ unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances.” “[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Accordingly, resolution of the issue whether the administrative procedures provided here are constitutionally sufficient requires analysis of the governmental and private inte

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.

2025The right to appointed counsel, “however, does not ‘include the privilege to insist that counsel be removed and replaced with other counsel merely because defendant becomes dissatisfied with his attorney’s services.’” Strickland, 283 N.C. App. 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

2025The right to appointed counsel, “however, does not ‘include the privilege to insist that counsel be removed and replaced with other counsel merely because defendant becomes dissatisfied with his attorney’s services.’” Strickland, 283 N.C. App. 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

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

2026State v. Leopard, 300 N.C. App. 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)).

2025See Maddux, 371 N.C. at 564 , 819 S.E.2d at 371 (“To establish plain error, a defendant “must show ‘that a fundamental error occurred at trial.

2026Additionally, “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, 628 , 766 S.E.2d 297, 304, 304 (2014) (cleaned up). 4 N.C. Admin.

2026Additionally, “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, 628 , 766 S.E.2d 297, 304, 304 (2014) (cleaned up). 4 N.C. Admin.

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).

2011App. 584, 587 , 614 S.E.2d 313, 315 (2005) (holding that defendants who do not object to jury instructions at trial are subject to a plain error standard of review on appeal). [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

2009App. 584, 587 , 614 S.E.2d 313, 315 , cert. denied, 359 N.C. 854 , 619 S.E.2d 854 (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 ‘ “resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appellant of a fair trial” ’ or where t

2008Stat. § 97-53 (20), inclusion on the list did not “relax[] the fundamental principle which requires proof of causal relation between injury and employment.... [A]n occupational disease [is not compensable] unless it [is] shown that the disease was incident to or the result of the particular employment in which the work[er] was engaged.” Duncan v. Charlotte, 234 N.C. 86, 91 , 66 S.E.2d 22, 25 (1951).

2008Stat. § 97-53 (20), inclusion on the list did not “relax[] the fundamental principle which requires proof of causal relation between injury and employment.... [A]n occupational disease [is not compensable] unless it [is] shown that the disease was incident to or the result of the particular employment in which the work[er] was engaged.” Duncan v. Charlotte, 234 N.C. 86, 91 , 66 S.E.2d 22, 25 (1951).