instruction constituted plain error in North Carolina

2021Id. at 131 , 540 S.E.2d at 342 (citing State v. Cummings, 326 N.C. 298, 315 , 389 S.E.2d 66, 75 (1990); State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 644 , 340 S.E.2d 84, 95 (1986)). ¶ 12 The transcript indicates the following: (1) Defendant replied “Yes, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he was satisfied with using the pattern jury instruction for armed robbery; (2) Defendant replied “No, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he had “[a]ny additions, corrections, or deletions to the instructions”; and (3) Defendant declined to be heard when the trial court determined it would not include the victims’ na

2021Id. at 131 , 540 S.E.2d at 342 (citing State v. Cummings, 326 N.C. 298, 315 , 389 S.E.2d 66, 75 (1990); State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 644 , 340 S.E.2d 84, 95 (1986)). ¶ 12 The transcript indicates the following: (1) Defendant replied “Yes, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he was satisfied with using the pattern jury instruction for armed robbery; (2) Defendant replied “No, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he had “[a]ny additions, corrections, or deletions to the instructions”; and (3) Defendant declined to be heard when the trial court determined it would not include the victims’ na

2021Id. at 131 , 540 S.E.2d at 342 (citing State v. Cummings, 326 N.C. 298, 315 , 389 S.E.2d 66, 75 (1990); State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 644 , 340 S.E.2d 84, 95 (1986)). ¶ 12 The transcript indicates the following: (1) Defendant replied “Yes, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he was satisfied with using the pattern jury instruction for armed robbery; (2) Defendant replied “No, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he had “[a]ny additions, corrections, or deletions to the instructions”; and (3) Defendant declined to be heard when the trial court determined it would not include the victims’ na

2021Id. at 131 , 540 S.E.2d at 342 (citing State v. Cummings, 326 N.C. 298, 315 , 389 S.E.2d 66, 75 (1990); State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 644 , 340 S.E.2d 84, 95 (1986)). ¶ 12 The transcript indicates the following: (1) Defendant replied “Yes, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he was satisfied with using the pattern jury instruction for armed robbery; (2) Defendant replied “No, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he had “[a]ny additions, corrections, or deletions to the instructions”; and (3) Defendant declined to be heard when the trial court determined it would not include the victims’ na

2020Thus, as in Harding and Hardy, we review the record to determine if the instruction constituted plain error. [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

2020Thus, as in Harding and Hardy, we review the record to determine if the instruction constituted plain error. [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

2021Id. at 131 , 540 S.E.2d at 342 (citing State v. Cummings, 326 N.C. 298, 315 , 389 S.E.2d 66, 75 (1990); State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 644 , 340 S.E.2d 84, 95 (1986)). ¶ 12 The transcript indicates the following: (1) Defendant replied “Yes, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he was satisfied with using the pattern jury instruction for armed robbery; (2) Defendant replied “No, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he had “[a]ny additions, corrections, or deletions to the instructions”; and (3) Defendant declined to be heard when the trial court determined it would not include the victims’ na

2021Id. at 131 , 540 S.E.2d at 342 (citing State v. Cummings, 326 N.C. 298, 315 , 389 S.E.2d 66, 75 (1990); State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 644 , 340 S.E.2d 84, 95 (1986)). ¶ 12 The transcript indicates the following: (1) Defendant replied “Yes, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he was satisfied with using the pattern jury instruction for armed robbery; (2) Defendant replied “No, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he had “[a]ny additions, corrections, or deletions to the instructions”; and (3) Defendant declined to be heard when the trial court determined it would not include the victims’ na

2024See State v. Hooks, 353 N.C. 629, 633 , 548 S.E.2d 501, 505 (2001) (“Having failed to object to his instruction at trial, [the] defendant did not properly preserve his issue for review; therefore, we review the record to determine whether the instruction constituted plain error.”); see also N.C.

2024See State v. Hooks, 353 N.C. 629, 633 , 548 S.E.2d 501, 505 (2001) (“Having failed to object to his instruction at trial, [the] defendant did not properly preserve his issue for review; therefore, we review the record to determine whether the instruction constituted plain error.”); see also N.C.