defect in the jury instruction in North Carolina

2024App. 477 , 486–87, 882 S.E.2d 719 , 727 (2023) (cleaned up); see also Odom, 307 N.C. at 661 , 300 S.E.2d at 378–79 (“In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes ‘plain error,’ the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.”).

2024App. 477 , 486–87, 882 S.E.2d 719 , 727 (2023) (cleaned up); see also Odom, 307 N.C. at 661 , 300 S.E.2d at 378–79 (“In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes ‘plain error,’ the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.”).

2014In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes 'plain error,' the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury's finding of guilt." Id. at 660-61 , 300 S.E.2d at 378 -79 (quoting Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154 , 52 L.

2014In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes 'plain error,' the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury's finding of guilt." Id. at 660-61 , 300 S.E.2d at 378 -79 (quoting Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154 , 52 L.

2015“In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes ‘plain error,’ the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” State v. Bell, 359 N.C. 1, 23 , 603 S.E.2d 93, 109 (2004) (citation omitted).

2015“In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes ‘plain error,’ the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” State v. Bell, 359 N.C. 1, 23 , 603 S.E.2d 93, 109 (2004) (citation omitted).

2011“In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes ‘plain error,’ the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” Id. at 661, 300 S.E.2d at 378-79.

2008"In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes `plain error,' the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury's finding of guilt." Id. at 661, 300 S.E.2d at 378-79 .

2011“In deciding *386 whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes ‘plain error,’ the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had' a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” State v. Smith, 162 N.C.

2008“In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes ‘plain error,’ the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” State v. Smith, 162 N.C.

2009“In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes ‘plain error’, [sic] the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 661 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378-79 (1983). “[A] charge must be construed ‘as a whole in the same connected way in which it was given.’ When thus considered, ‘if it fairly and correctly presents the law, it will afford no ground for reversing the judgment, even if an isolated expression should be found technically inaccurate.’ ” State v. Tomb

2009“In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes ‘plain error’, [sic] the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 661 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378-79 (1983). “[A] charge must be construed ‘as a whole in the same connected way in which it was given.’ When thus considered, ‘if it fairly and correctly presents the law, it will afford no ground for reversing the judgment, even if an isolated expression should be found technically inaccurate.’ ” State v. Tomb

2012Our Supreme Court has “consistently held that it is error, generally prejudicial, for the trial judge to permit a jury to convict upon a theory not supported by the bill of indictment.” State v. Brown, 312 N.C. 237, 248 , 321 S.E.2d 856, 863 (1984) (citations omitted); see also State v. Williams, 318 N.C. 624, 628 , 350 S.E.2d 353, 356 (1986) (holding that “a defendant must be convicted, if convicted at all, of the particular offense charged in the warrant or bill of indictment”).

2012Our Supreme Court has “consistently held that it is error, generally prejudicial, for the trial judge to permit a jury to convict upon a theory not supported by the bill of indictment.” State v. Brown, 312 N.C. 237, 248 , 321 S.E.2d 856, 863 (1984) (citations omitted); see also State v. Williams, 318 N.C. 624, 628 , 350 S.E.2d 353, 356 (1986) (holding that “a defendant must be convicted, if convicted at all, of the particular offense charged in the warrant or bill of indictment”).

2007State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983) (quoting U.S. v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, McCaskill v. U.S., 459 U.S. 1018 , 74 L.

1995In Odom , we also stated that plain error is "`fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done.'" Id. at 660 , 300 S.E.2d at 378 (quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018 , 103 S.Ct. 381 , 74 L.Ed.2d 513 (1982)).

2008“In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes ‘plain error,’ the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” State v. Odom,, 307 N.C. 655, 661 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378-79 (1983) (citing United States v. Jackson, 569 F. 2d 1003 (7th Cir.), cert, denied, 437 U.S. 907 , 57 L.

2007Odom continued, "In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes `plain error,' the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury's finding of guilt." Odom, 307 N.C. at 661 , 300 S.E.2d at 378 -79 (citing United States v. Jackson, 569 F.2d 1003 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 907 , 98 S.Ct. 3096 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1137 (1978)).

2026SMITH Opinion of the Court State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518 (2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Maready, 362 N.C. 614, 621 (2008) (“In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes ‘plain error,’ the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.”).

2011Maready, 362 N.C. at 621 , 669 S.E.2d at 568 .

2013“In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes ‘plain error,’ [we] must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” State v. Goforth, 170 N.C.

2013Goforth, 170 N.C.

2007That is, "[b]efore deciding that an error by the trial court amounts to `plain error,' the appellate court must be convinced that absent the error the jury probably would have reached a different verdict." State v. Walker, 316 N.C. 33, 39 , 340 S.E.2d 80, 83 (1986) (citing Odom, 307 N.C. at 661 , 300 S.E.2d at 378-79 ).

2007That is, "[b]efore deciding that an error by the trial court amounts to `plain error,' the appellate court must be convinced that absent the error the jury probably would have reached a different verdict." State v. Walker, 316 N.C. 33, 39 , 340 S.E.2d 80, 83 (1986) (citing Odom, 307 N.C. at 661 , 300 S.E.2d at 378-79 ).

2026SMITH Opinion of the Court State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518 (2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Maready, 362 N.C. 614, 621 (2008) (“In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes ‘plain error,’ the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.”).

2025“In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes plain error, the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” State v. Coleman, 200 N.C.

2025App. 696, 706 , 684 S.E.2d 513, 520 (2009) (cleaned up), disc. review denied, 364 N.C. 129 , 696 S.E.2d 527 (2010). 2.

2014“In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes ‘plain error’, the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” -26- State v. Richardson, 112 N.C.

2014App. 58, 66 , 434 S.E.2d 657, 663 (1993) (citation omitted).

2012Our Supreme Court has “consistently held that it is error, generally prejudicial, for the trial judge to permit a jury to convict upon a theory not supported by the bill of indictment.” State v. Brown, 312 N.C. 237, 248 , 321 S.E.2d 856, 863 (1984) (citations omitted); see also State v. Williams, 318 N.C. 624, 628 , 350 S.E.2d 353, 356 (1986) (holding that “a defendant must be convicted, if convicted at all, of the particular offense charged in the warrant or bill of indictment”).

2012Our Supreme Court has “consistently held that it is error, generally prejudicial, for the trial judge to permit a jury to convict upon a theory not supported by the bill of indictment.” State v. Brown, 312 N.C. 237, 248 , 321 S.E.2d 856, 863 (1984) (citations omitted); see also State v. Williams, 318 N.C. 624, 628 , 350 S.E.2d 353, 356 (1986) (holding that “a defendant must be convicted, if convicted at all, of the particular offense charged in the warrant or bill of indictment”).

2012Further, in deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes plain error, the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt. 191 N.C.

2012App. 439, 446 , 664 S.E.2d 402, 408 (2008) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

2011State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660-61 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378-79 (1983) (citations omitted). “ ‘In order to prevail under a plain error analysis, defendant must establish . . . that “absent the error, the jury probably would have reached a different result.” ’ ” State v. Cummings, 352 N.C. 600, 616 , 536 S.E.2d 36, 49 (2000) (citations omitted).

2011State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660-61 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378-79 (1983) (citations omitted). “ ‘In order to prevail under a plain error analysis, defendant must establish . . . that “absent the error, the jury probably would have reached a different result.” ’ ” State v. Cummings, 352 N.C. 600, 616 , 536 S.E.2d 36, 49 (2000) (citations omitted).