{ "id": 8172160, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOAN MYRTLE SHANNON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Shannon", "decision_date": "2007-04-03", "docket_number": "No. COA06-418", "first_page": "350", "last_page": "365", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "182 N.C. App. 350" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "618 S.E.2d 776", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633884 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "778" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/618/0776-01" ] }, { "cite": "616 S.E.2d 496", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633572 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "499", "parenthetical": "courts tend to adopt an interpretation that avoids absurd results based on the presumption that the General Assembly acted in accordance with reason" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/616/0496-01" ] }, { "cite": "625 S.E.2d 135", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634953 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "138", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/625/0135-01" ] }, { "cite": "632 S.E.2d 218", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636290 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "223" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/632/0218-01" ] }, { "cite": "635 S.E.2d 482", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636800 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "484" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/635/0482-01" ] }, { "cite": "616 S.E.2d 264", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633480 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/616/0264-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 N.C. App. 297", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8353396 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "299" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/173/0297-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 U.S. 83", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11716714 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/373/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "235 S.E.2d 828", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "841" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561617 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "126" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0105-01" ] }, { "cite": "591 S.E.2d 870", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "889" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2985361 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "30" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/358/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 832", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3793573 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "courts tend to adopt an interpretation that avoids absurd results based on the presumption that the General Assembly acted in accordance with reason" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0832-01" ] }, { "cite": "492 S.E.2d 369", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "371" }, { "page": "372" }, { "page": "372" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 N.C. App. 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11798906 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "588" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/127/0585-01" ] }, { "cite": "416 S.E.2d 4", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "7" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 N.C. 361", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2497813 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "366" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/331/0361-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 N.C. App. 705", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8353149 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "710", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/175/0705-01" ] }, { "cite": "436 S.E.2d 122", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "124", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 N.C. 133", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2527406 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "136", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/335/0133-01" ] }, { "cite": "418 S.E.2d 232", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "235", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "332 N.C. 141", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2508082 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "144", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/332/0141-01" ] }, { "cite": "450 S.E.2d 13", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "14-15", "parenthetical": "\"[E]ven if the trial court believed that [the witness] gave a statement, there is no evidence that [she] signed, .adopted or otherwise approved of the statement. [Hence] there was no statement as defined in section 15A-903.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N.C. App. 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524437 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "125", "parenthetical": "\"[E]ven if the trial court believed that [the witness] gave a statement, there is no evidence that [she] signed, .adopted or otherwise approved of the statement. [Hence] there was no statement as defined in section 15A-903.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/117/0122-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 N.C. App. 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8378055 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "401" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/178/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 N.C. App. 848", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8240610 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "851" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/179/0848-01" ] }, { "cite": "271 S.E.2d 393", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "399", "parenthetical": "concluding that the court's denial of a motion to amend was based on a misapprehension of the law, was an abuse of discretion and reversible error" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 N.C. App. 226", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520529 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "234", "parenthetical": "concluding that the court's denial of a motion to amend was based on a misapprehension of the law, was an abuse of discretion and reversible error" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/49/0226-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E.2d 768", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "774", "parenthetical": "stating that \"where rulings are made under a misapprehension of the law, the orders or rulings of the trial judge may be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings, modified or reversed, as the rights of the parties and the applicable law may require\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573638 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "30", "parenthetical": "stating that \"where rulings are made under a misapprehension of the law, the orders or rulings of the trial judge may be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings, modified or reversed, as the rights of the parties and the applicable law may require\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0020-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 N.C. App. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8318580 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "14", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/172/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "549 S.E.2d 871", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "874", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 N.C. App. 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11434433 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "374", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/144/0369-01" ] }, { "cite": "594 S.E.2d 248", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "252", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "163 N.C. App. 696", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8920388 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "701", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/163/0696-01" ] }, { "cite": "488 S.E.2d 769", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "779", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "346 N.C. 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 139608 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "385", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/346/0365-01" ] }, { "cite": "577 S.E.2d 655", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "663", "parenthetical": "plain error review applies to admission of evidence and jury instructions" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "157 N.C. App. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9184753 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "33", "parenthetical": "plain error review applies to admission of evidence and jury instructions" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/157/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "603 S.E.2d 886", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "888" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "166 N.C. App. 733", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8413765 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "736-37" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/166/0733-01" ] }, { "cite": "343 S.E.2d 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "889" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 87", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4777958 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "93-4" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0087-01" ] }, { "cite": "391 S.E.2d 171", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "174" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 542", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5305171 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "548" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0542-01" ] }, { "cite": "461 S.E.2d 325", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "330", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Agee, 326 N.C. 542, 548, 391 S.E.2d 171, 174 (1990)" }, { "page": "330", "parenthetical": "prior bad acts are admissible to show a chain of events" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 N.C. 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 793133 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "618", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Agee, 326 N.C. 542, 548, 391 S.E.2d 171, 174 (1990)" }, { "page": "618" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/341/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "561 S.E.2d 321", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "326", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 N.C. App. 354", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9127969 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "362", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/149/0354-01" ] }, { "cite": "410 S.E.2d 226", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "228" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N.C. App. 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522544 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "502" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/104/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "591 S.E.2d 11", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "17", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Wallace, 104 N.C. App. 498, 502, 410 S.E.2d 226, 228 (1991)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 N.C. App. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8916392 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "266", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Wallace, 104 N.C. App. 498, 502, 410 S.E.2d 226, 228 (1991)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/162/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "618 S.E.2d 776", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633884 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/618/0776-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1451, "char_count": 36824, "ocr_confidence": 0.757, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.019068944365875e-07, "percentile": 0.853761358287684 }, "sha256": "cb48ce26cf53cfd961c7edd612a55982ec637db387da4d1162078a384da427d8", "simhash": "1:43e0536a7e0f06b4", "word_count": 5869 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:32:14.097428+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge HUNTER concurs.", "Judge McCULLOUGH concurring in part and dissenting in a separate opinion." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOAN MYRTLE SHANNON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LEVINSON, Judge.\nJoan Mrytle Shannon (defendant) appeals judgments entered upon her convictions for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. We conclude that the trial court judge did not err by admitting evidence related to defendant\u2019s \u201cswinger\u201d lifestyle. We also conclude, with respect to an issue of first impression, that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-903(a)(l) (2005) requires prosecutors to disclose, in written or recorded form, statements made to them by witnesses during pretrial interviews.\nIn the instant case, defendant was married to David Shannon (Shannon), who served in the United States Military. Defendant and Shannon lived in Fayetteville, North Carolina with Daisy Shannon (Daisy) and Elizabeth Shannon (Elizabeth), defendant\u2019s biological daughters.\nDefendant and Shannon were members of the \u201cFayetteville Gang Bangers\u201d, a \u201cswingers\u201d club. Jeffrey Wilson testified that defendant and Shannon contacted him online through the internet in November or December 2001. After they began corresponding online, Shannon asked Wilson if he wanted to have sex with defendant. Wilson further testified that Shannon told him about the \u201cFayetteville Gang Bangers,\u201d and encouraged him to add his name to their e-mail list to receive party notifications. Over the course of the next three months, Wilson went to \u201cFayetteville Gang Bangers\u201d parties.\nWilson attended a \u201cFayetteville Gang Bangers\u201d party in February 2002. Defendant and Shannon also attended this party, which was hosted at a motel in adjoining rooms. One room was the \u201cmeet and greet\u201d room where people talked, and the other was the \u201cparty\u201d room where people engaged in sexual activities. Defendant and another woman approached Wilson and indicated they wanted to engage in sexual relations with him. Defendant and the other woman performed oral sex on Wilson. Wilson then had vaginal sex with defendant while defendant performed oral sex on another man.\nWilson testified that around March 2002, he went to a party hosted by Tony Bennett (Bennett). At this party, defendant undressed while Shannon took photographs. Wilson and two other men took turns having vaginal and oral sex with defendant while Shannon photographed them. Shannon then had sex with defendant while Wilson photographed them. A few days thereafter, defendant asked Wilson how' he felt about \u201cseeing her on a regular basis.\u201d Wilson asked defendant if it would be a problem with Shannon. Defendant informed Wilson that it would be acceptable with Shannon as long as it was not \u201cserious.\u201d Wilson and defendant\u2019s relationship became more personal and they began to appear in public together. Defendant told Wilson she \u201cloved\u201d him and could see herself being with him.\nElizabeth Shannon testified that in April 2002, she heard defendant talking on the telephone with Wilson. During the course of the conversation, defendant stated, \u201c[Shannon] rides on planes all the time. Why can\u2019t one of his planes just go down?\u201d Elizabeth also testified that defendant attempted to poison Shannon several times in late April and early May of 2002. And, according to Elizabeth, defendant once asked Daisy if she knew where she could acquire the \u201cdate rape drug\u201d to administer to Shannon. Shannon had over $700,000.00 in life insurance, and defendant was the named beneficiary on his policies. Additionally, because Shannon was on active military duty, defendant would be entitled to monthly military benefits for herself and their minor children if Shannon died.\nDefendant asked Elizabeth if she knew \u201canybody that would be able to shoot [Shannon].\u201d Defendant said that she wanted to be with Wilson, and could not afford to leave Shannon. Elizabeth told defendant that she would talk to her friend, Anthony Jones (Jones), about obtaining a gun. When Jones refused to help, Elizabeth contacted Donald White (White) and asked him if he would kill Shannon for money. White refused. \u25a0 \u25a0\nWhen Elizabeth could not find anyone to kill Shannon, defendant began pressuring Elizabeth to do it herself. Shortly before Shannon\u2019s murder, Elizabeth testified, defendant showed her a gun belonging to Shannon. Defendant loaded the gun and instructed Elizabeth on how it worked. Defendant put the loaded gun, bullets, and surgical gloves in a drawer in Elizabeth\u2019s room. The next day, 22 July 2002, Elizabeth told defendant, \u201cI\u2019ll do it.\u201d\nVera Thompson, Elizabeth\u2019s friend, was staying at the Shannon\u2019s home the night of the killing. At approximately 11:00 p.m., defendant went into Elizabeth\u2019s bedroom and told her that she and Shannon were going to bed. After putting on surgical gloves and sweat clothes over a layer of clothes, Elizabeth went into the bedroom Shannon shared with defendant. Defendant had instructed her to do these things. Shannon and defendant were lying on the'bed. When Elizabeth shot Shannon in the head, Shannon began breathing erratically. Believing he was not dead, Elizabeth shot him in the chest. After the second shot, defendant crawled to the end of the bed and grabbed the cordless phone. Defendant asked Elizabeth and Thompson to dispose of the gun. Thereafter, according to Elizabeth, defendant stated, \u201cI need to think of something to cry about.\u201d Defendant was overheard crying on the phone, stating, \u201csomeone has broke [n] into the house and shot my husband.\u201d\nOfficer Faneal Godbold (Godbold) of the Fayetteville Police Department responded to a 911 call at 3:07 a.m. on 23 July 2002 from a female who reported that her husband had been shot. Upon Godbold\u2019s arrival, defendant was crying. Defendant stated that \u201cher husband had been shot\u201d and that she did not know who did it. When Godbold and Sergeant Oates, also of the Fayetteville Police Department, entered the house, they found two sleeping boys in one bedroom and Elizabeth and Thompson awake, listening to music. The officers discovered Shannon in the master bedroom, lying naked on the bed with a sheet pulled midway up. He had bullet wounds to his forehead and chest. There were large quantities of blood everywhere, including blood splatter and brain matter on the bedroom wall. When Godbold told Elizabeth that her father had been shot, Elizabeth calmly inquired, \u201c[d]id he die?\u201d\nThree firearms were recovered from the master bedroom of the Shannons\u2019 house. None of those firearms, however, was the murder weapon. Sexually-oriented videotapes and magazines, sexual devices, lubricants, and condoms were also recovered from the house. The cause of Shannon\u2019s death was close-range gunshot wounds to his head and chest.\nA jury convicted defendant of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, and accessory after the fact to murder. The trial court arrested judgment on the offense of accessory after the fact to murder. Defendant appeals.\nIn defendant\u2019s first argument on appeal, she contends that the trial court erred by admitting three sexually suggestive photographs of defendant. Specifically, defendant asserts that the photographs were irrelevant and, alternatively, unduly prejudicial. We disagree.\nRelevant evidence is evidence which has \u201cany tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 401 (2005). \u201cAlthough [a] \u2018trial court\u2019s rulings on relevancy technically are not discretionary and therefore are.not reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard applicable to Rule 403, such rulings are given great deference on appeal.\u2019 \u201d Dunn v. Custer, 162 N.C. App. 259, 266, 591 S.E.2d 11, 17 (2004) (quoting State v. Wallace, 104 N.C. App. 498, 502, 410 S.E.2d 226, 228 (1991)). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (2005) provides, in pertinent part, that:\nEvidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, .preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident....\nIt is well established that:\nRule 404(b) is one of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes . . . subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged. [S]uch evidence is admissible as long as it is relevant to any fact or issue other than the defendant\u2019s propensity to commit the crime.\nState v. Patterson, 149 N.C. App. 354, 362, 561 S.E.2d 321, 326 (2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Moreover, our Supreme Court has stated that:\n\u201c[E]vidence, not part of the crime charged but pertaining to the chain of events explaining the context, motive and set-up of the crime, is properly admitted if linked in time and circumstances with the charged crime, or [if it] forms an integral and natural part of an account of the crime, or is necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury.\u201d\nState v. Ratliff, 341 N.C. 610, 618, 461 S.E.2d 325, 330 (1995) (quoting State v. Agee, 326 N.C. 542, 548, 391 S.E.2d 171, 174 (1990)).\nIn the instant case, three photographs, from the \u201cswingers\u201d party of March 2002 were admitted by the trial court over defendant\u2019s objection. State\u2019s Exhibit 124 showed defendant wearing a piece of red lingerie pulled up to reveal portions of her lower body. She is shown lying next to Wilson, who had both of his hands near the vicinity of defendant\u2019s left leg. State\u2019s Exhibit 125 depicted defendant, nude, having vaginal sex with another individual while defendant performed fellatio on Wilson. State\u2019s Exhibit 126 showed defendant, wearing a black garter belt and stockings, having vaginal sex with Wilson while defendant held another man\u2019s penis in her left hand.\nIn accordance with Ratliff and Agee, the photographs helped support the State\u2019s contention that defendant wanted to be with Wilson and that this constituted a motive to kill Shannon. Additionally, the evidence illustrated the chain of events leading up to Shannon\u2019s murder, and corroborated the existence of Wilson\u2019s sexual relationship with defendant. For these reasons, we disagree with defendant\u2019s contentions that the photographs were not legally relevant.\nDefendant also argues that even if the photographs were relevant, they were unfairly prejudicial and therefore inadmissable. We disagree.\nRule 403 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence provides, in pertinent part, that:\nAlthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 403 (2005).\n\u201cRule 403 calls for a balancing of the proffered evidence\u2019s probative value against its prejudicial effect. Necessarily, evidence which is probative in the State\u2019s case will have a prejudicial effect on the defendant; the question, then, is one of degree.\u201d State v. Mercer, 317 N.C. 87, 93-4, 343 S.E.2d 885, 889 (1986). The exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 is within the trial court\u2019s discretion and will be reversed on appeal upon a showing that the decision was manifestly unsupported by reason. State v. Quinn, 166 N.C. App. 733, 736-37, 603 S.E.2d 886, 888 (2004).\nOn this record, the trial court did not err by concluding that the probative value of the photographs was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We observe that the trial court only permitted the admission of three (3) of eight (8) photographs the State sought to introduce, and directed that the photographs would be passed around to the jurors in a folder and not shown on an overhead projector. Because the photographs were relevant, and because the trial court\u2019s Rule 403 determination is not unsupported by reason, the relevant assignments of error are overruled.\nIn a related argument, defendant contends that the trial court committed plain error by admitting evidence of defendant\u2019s sexual activities; pornographic and sex related items; and testimony about the \u201cFayetteville Gang Bangers\u201d. We disagree.\nAs defendant failed to object to the admission of this evidence we review for plain error. See State v. Wolfe, 157 N.C. App. 22, 33, 577 S.E.2d 655, 663 (2003) (plain error review applies to admission of evidence and jury instructions). To establish plain error, a defendant must demonstrate \u201c(i) that a different result probably would have been reached but for the error or (ii) that the error was so fundamental as to result in a miscarriage of justice or denial of a fair trial.\u201d State v. Bishop, 346 N.C. 365, 385, 488 S.E.2d 769, 779 (1997) (citations omitted). We \u201cmust examine the entire record and determine if the . . . error had a probable impact on the jury\u2019s finding of guilt.\u201d State v. Pullen, 163 N.C. App. 696, 701, 594 S.E.2d 248, 252 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\nLike the three (3) photographs discussed above, evidence regarding the \u201cFayetteville Gang Bangers\u201d and defendant\u2019s sexual activities had similar probative value. See Ratliff, 341 N.C. at 618, 461 S.E.2d at 330 (prior bad acts are admissible to show a chain of events). This evidence helped illustrate the \u201cswinger\u201d lifestyle; showed the events leading to defendant\u2019s relationship and desire to be with Wilson; and explained the \u201cstory of the crime for the jury.\u201d Id. We conclude that the trial court\u2019s admission of the evidence, even if error, was not so fundamental as to result in a miscarriage of justice, and we are unpersuaded that a different result would have occurred in the absence of such evidence. The relevant assignments of error are overruled.\nIn defendant\u2019s next argument on appeal, she presents an issue of first impression: the statutory meaning and application of the term \u201cwitness statements\u201d under the amended version of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-903(a)(l) (2005). Defendant contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error by denying her discovery motion that sought notes of one or more pretrial conversations or interviews the prosecutor\u2019s office had with Daisy Shannon and other witnesses. The record reflects that the trial court judge did not compel the prosecutor to reduce the substance of such interview(s) to writing, and this Court does not have such notes in the record. Defendant\u2019s argument has merit.\nWe review a trial court\u2019s ruling on discovery matters under the abuse of discretion standard. Morin v. Sharp, 144 N.C. App. 369, 374, 549 S.E.2d 871, 874 (2001) (citation omitted). \u201cA trial court may be reversed for abuse of discretion only upon a showing that its ruling was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.\u201d In re J.B., 172 N.C. App. 1, 14, 616 S.E.2d 264, 272 (2005) (citation omitted). Additionally:\nWhen discretionary rulings are made under a misapprehension of the law, this may constitute an abuse of discretion. See State v. Cornell, 281 N.C. 20, 30, 187 S.E.2d 768, 774 (1972) (stating that \u201cwhere rulings are made under a misapprehension of the law, the orders or rulings of the trial judge may be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings, modified or reversed, as the rights of the parties and the applicable law may require\u201d); Cf. Ledford v. Ledford, 49 N.C. App. 226, 234, 271 S.E.2d 393, 399 (1980) (concluding that the court\u2019s denial of a motion to amend was based on a misapprehension of the law, was an abuse of discretion and reversible error).\nGailey v. Triangle Billiards & Blues Club, Inc., 179 N.C. App. 848, 851, 635 S.E.2d 482, 484 (2006).\nIt is well-established in North Carolina that \u201c[t]he right to . . . discovery is a statutory right.\u201d State v. Taylor, 178 N.C. App. 395, 401, 632 S.E.2d 218, 223 (2006). Consequently, in order to ascertain the correct meaning of a \u201cwitness statement\u201d, for the purpose of the instant case, it is necessary to evaluate the current and prior versions of G.S. \u00a7 15A-903.\nThe 2003 version of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-903 required the State to produce witness statements:\nAfter a witness called by the State has testified on direct examination, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, order the State to produce any statement of the witness in' the possession of the State that relates to thfe subject matter as to which the witness has testified. If the entire contents of that statement relate to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness, the court shall order it to be delivered directly to the defendant for his examination and use.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-903(f)(2) (2003). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-903(f)(5) (2003) defined the term \u201cstatement\u201d:\nThe term \u2018statement,\u2019 as used in subdivision (2), (3), and (4) in relation to any witness called by the State means\na. A written statement made by the witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him;\nb. A stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, that is a substantially verbatim recital or an oral statement made by the witness and recorded contemporaneously with the making of the oral statements.\nTherefore, under the prior version of G.S. \u00a7 15A-903, unless a statement was signed or somehow adopted by a witness, the assertion would not qualify as a statement. See State v. Shedd, 117 N.C. App. 122, 125, 450 S.E.2d 13, 14-15 (1994) (\u201c[E]ven if the trial court believed that [the witness] gave a statement, there is no evidence that [she] signed, .adopted or otherwise approved of the statement. [Hence] there was no statement as defined in section 15A-903.\u201d).\nHowever, on 1 October 2004, the General Assembly amended G.S. \u00a7 15A-903. In doing so, the legislature, inter alia, deleted the definition of the term \u201cstatement\u201d. The current version of the statute provides, in pertinent part, that:\n(a) Upon motion of the defendant, the court must order the State to:\n(1) Make available to the defendant the complete files of all law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies involved in the investigation of the crimes committed or the prosecution of the defendant. The term \u2018file\u2019 includes the defendant\u2019s statements, the code-fendants\u2019 statements, witness statements, investigating officers\u2019 notes, results of tests and examinations, or any other matter or evidence obtained during the investigation of the offenses alleged to have been committed by the defendant. Oral statements shall be in written or recorded form. . . .\nG.S. \u00a7 15A-903(a)(l) (2005) (emphasis added).\n\u201cStatutory interpretation properly begins with an examination of the plain words of the statute.\u201d Correll v. Division of Social Services, 332 N.C. 141, 144, 418 S.E.2d 232, 235 (1992) (citation omitted). In interpreting statutory language, \u201cit is presumed the General Assembly intended the words it used to have the meaning they have in ordinary speech. When the plain meaning of a statute is unambiguous, a court should go no further in interpreting the statute.\u201d Nelson v. Battle Forest Friends Meeting, 335 N.C. 133, 136, 436 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1993) (citations omitted). \u201c[I]f the legislature deletes specific words or phrases from a statute, it is presumed that the legislature intended that the deleted portion should no longer be the law.\u201d Nello L. Teer Co. v. N.C. Dept. of Transp., 175 N.C. App. 705, 710, 625 S.E.2d 135, 138 (2006) (citations omitted). \u201c[W]e follow the maxims of statutory construction that words of a statute are not to be deemed useless or redundant and amendments are presumed not to be without purpose.\u201d Town of Pine Knoll Shores v. Evans, 331 N.C. 361, 366, 416 S.E.2d 4, 7 (1992).\nWe first conclude that the former statutory definition of \u201cstatement\u201d in G.S. \u00a7 15A-903(f)(5) no longer has application to the revised version of G.S. \u00a7 15A-903(a)(l). The definition was completely omitted from the current version of the statute and we presume, consistent with Nello, that it was the General Assembly\u2019s intention that the deleted portion of the statute no longer be the law of North Carolina. Moreover, again in contrast to the former version of the statute, amended 15A-903(a)(l) mandates that \u201c[o]ral statements shall be in written or recorded form.\u201d The plain, unambiguous meaning of this requirement is that \u201cstatements\u201d need not be signed or adopted by a witness before being subject to discovery.\nNotwithstanding the unambiguous requirements of G.S. \u00a7 15A-903(a)(l), the State contends the statutory definition of \u201cstatement\u201d in the 2003 version still applies. It relies on Dare County Bd. of Educ. v. Sakaria, 127 N.C. App. 585, 588, 492 S.E.2d 369, 371 (1997), for the proposition that \u201cwhen a term has obtained longstanding legal significance, we presume the legislature intended such significance to attach to its use of that term, absent indication to the contrary.\u201d In Dare County, the issue on appeal was directed to the statutory meaning of \u201cdate of taking\u201d in condemnation proceedings as set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 40A-53 (1984). In conducting its analysis, this Court noted that neither the current nor prior versions of the statute defined \u201cdate of taking.\u201d Despite a lack of statutory guidance, \u201cpre-Chapter 40A case law uniformly held interest ran from the date of taking, interpreted as the date upon which the con-demnor acquired the right to possession of the property.\u201d Id. at 588, 492 S.E.2d at 372. Accordingly, \u201c \u2018date of taking\u2019 had acquired legal significance as a term of art for purposes of computation of interest at the time Chapter 40A was enacted, and [this Court was unable to ascertain any] legislative intent to deviate from this accepted common law meaning.\u201d Id. at 589, 492 S.E.2d at 372. This contrasts with the instant case, where the General Assembly has now omitted a statutory definition of \u201cstatement.\u201d In short, Dare County is not controlling authority.\nWe next conclude that a writing or recording evidencing a witness\u2019 assertions to a state prosecutor can qualify as a \u201cwitness statement\u201d under Section 15A-903(a)(l). If, for example, Daisy Shannon made assertions to the prosecutor during pretrial interviews with her that are connected to the prosecution of defendant, they are discoverable. See Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 1444 (8th ed. 2004) (\u201cstatement\u201d includes an \u201cassertion\u201d). The Cumberland County District Attorney\u2019s Office is, of course, a \u201cprosecutorial agenc[y]\u201d involved in the \u201cprosecution of the defendant^]\u201d and its \u201cfiles\u201d are discoverable. G.S. \u00a7 15A-903(a)(l).\nWe next address several arguments by the State that a definition of \u201cwitness statements\u201d in Section 15A~903(a)(l) that requires the disclosure of oral interviews and/or conversations between a prosecutor and a witness would lead to absurd consequences. See State v. Jones, 359 N.C. 832, 837 616 S.E.2d 496, 499 (2005) (courts tend to adopt an interpretation that avoids absurd results based on the presumption that the General Assembly acted in accordance with reason).\nFirst, the State posits that it would be inconsistent to have different definitions of \u201cwitness statement\u201d in criminal and civil discovery contexts. Compare G.S. \u00a7 15A-903(a)(l), with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 26(b)(3) (2005) (defining \u201ca, statement previously made\u201d). However, \u201cgiven the high stakes of criminal prosecutions and the special protections traditionally afforded criminal defendants [,]\u201d Whitacre Partnership v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1, 30, 591 S.E.2d 870, 889 (2004), it is not untenable that the General Assembly would intend differing discovery requirements in criminal matters than civil ones.\nSecondly, the State contends that failing to apply the former statutory definition of \u201cstatement\u201d in G.S. \u00a7 15A-903(f)(5) would (1) \u201cseriously undermine\u201d work product protection, and (2) impose an affirmative duty on prosecutors to take notes of the interviews it conducts. However, with respect to the State\u2019s first contention, work product is still given protection. The current version of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-904(a) (2005) provides:\nThe State is not required to disclose written materials drafted by the prosecuting attorney or the prosecuting attorney\u2019s legal staff for their own use at trial, including witness examinations, voir dire questions, opening statements, arid closing arguments. Disclosure is also not required of legal research or of records, correspondence, reports, memoranda, or trial preparation interview notes prepared by the prosecuting attorney or by members of the prosecuting attorney\u2019s legal staff to the extent they contain the opinions, theories, strategies, or conclusions of the prosecuting attorney or the prosecuting attorney\u2019s legal staff. (emphasis added).\nThe former version of G.S. 15A-904(a) provided:\nExcept as provided in G.S. 15A-903(a),(b),(c) and (e), this Article does not require the production of reports, memoranda, or other internal documents made by the prosecutor, law-enforcement officers, or other persons acting on behalf of the State in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case, or of statements made by witnesses or prospective witnesses of the State to anyone acting on behalf of the State.\nThus, consistent with our conclusions above concerning the disclosures required by the revised version of Section 15A-903(a)(l), the General Assembly expressly contemplates in the revised version of Section 15A-904(a) that \u201ctrial preparation interview notes\u201d might be discoverable except where they \u201ccontain the opinions, theories, strategies, or conclusions of the prosecuting attorney or the prosecuting attorney\u2019s legal staff.\u201d Stated alternatively, the current version of G.S. 15A-904 comports with the current version of G.S. 15A-903; and the former version of G.S. \u00a7 15A-904 comports with the former version of G.S. 15A-903. As regards the State\u2019s contention that there is no affirmative obligation on the part of prosecutors \u201cto take notes of interviews it conducts,\u201d we observe, again, that the amended version of Section 15A-903(a)(l) itself mandates that \u201c[o]ral statements shall be in written or recorded form.\u201d And we reject outright the contention that every writing evidencing a witness\u2019 assertions to a prosecutor will necessarily include the prosecutor\u2019s \u201copinions, theories, strategies, or conclusions\u201d \u2014 that which is still afforded protection under G.S. \u00a7 15A-904(a). See State v. Hardy, 293 N.C. 105, 126, 235 S.E.2d 828, 841 (1977) (\u201cOnly roughly and broadly speaking can a statement of a witness that is reduced verbatim to a' writing or a recording by an attorney be considered work product, if at all. It is work product only in the sense that it was prepared by the attorney or his agent in anticipation of trial. . . . Such a statement is not work product in the same sense that an attorney\u2019s impressions, opinions, and conclusions or his legal theories and strategies are work product.\u201d).\nWe next reject the State\u2019s assertion that, because there is nothing to suggest that it did not comply with the constitutional discovery requirements set forth by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), there can be no prejudice to defendant as a result of the prosecutor\u2019s failure to disclose the substance of his pretrial interview(s) with Daisy or other witnesses. Whatever the constitutional requirements to disclose exculpatory evidence to the accused, the statutory issue implicated by G.S. \u00a7 15A-903(a)(l) in the instant case is wholly different. The legislature has, by its amendments to G.S. \u00a7 15A-903, assured the accused greater access than that afforded by simple due process.\nThe trial court erred by misapprehending the application of the amended version of G.S. \u00a7 15A-903(a)(l) when ruling on defendant\u2019s motion to compel discovery of the pretrial interview(s) the prosecutor had with Daisy Shannon and other witnesses. Because the trial court judge did not require the prosecutor to provide, in written or recorded form, any \u201cwitness statements,\u201d we are necessarily unable to determine whether the trial court\u2019s misapprehension of the discovery statute and its resulting ruling prejudiced the outcome of the trial. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1443(a) (2005) (\u201cA defendant is prejudiced by errors relating to rights arising other than under the Constitution of the United States when there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises.\u201d). We therefore treat defendant\u2019s assertions as a motion for appropriate relief in this Court, and remand the same for an evidentiary hearing.\nAs any experienced criminal practitioner will recognize, our decision leaves many unanswered questions concerning the particular applications and impact of the amended version of G.S. \u00a7 15A-903. This decision \u2014 necessitated by the General Assembly\u2019s collective will that the statutory scope of discovery be expanded \u2014 will result in a marked change in the discovery practices in criminal cases in North Carolina. Particularly here, where the issue on appeal concerns statutory discovery, it is \u201cnot the province of this Court to superimpose our own determination of what North Carolina\u2019s public policy should be over that deemed appropriate by our General Assembly.\u201d Jarman v. Deason, 173 N.C. App. 297, 299, 618 S.E.2d 776, 778 (2005).\nNo error in judgment; motion for appropriate relief remanded.\nJudge HUNTER concurs.\nJudge McCULLOUGH concurring in part and dissenting in a separate opinion.\n. The record reflects that the prosecutor stated the following to the trial court in regards to his interview with Daisy Shannon: \u201cI was particular to write down all the things she said the defendant said, and I may have written down some of my impressions about what she told me, but I didn\u2019t have any notes. . . . [A]s for talking with [Daisy] and taking notes of everything she said, I didn\u2019t do that.\u201d\n. \u201cThe revised version of G.S. \u00a7 15A-904 reflects the narrower version of the [work product doctrine]. It continu\u00e9s to protect the prosecuting attorney\u2019s mental processes while allowing the defendant access to factual information collected by the state.\u201d John Rubin, Administration of Justice, N.C. Institute of Government, Bulletin 2004/06, page 8.", "type": "majority", "author": "LEVINSON, Judge." }, { "text": "McCULLOUGH, Judge,\nconcurring in part and dissenting in part.\nI concur in so much of the majority opinion that concludes that the trial of this defendant was conducted free of error.\nI dissent from the majority\u2019s remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the prosecutor\u2019s failure to memorialize his conversation with Daisy Shannon resulted in prejudice.\nThe discovery statute at issue, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-903(a)(l) (2005) does broaden the defendant\u2019s right to have all of witness\u2019s statements made to an investigator, whether or not adopted by that witness. The statute makes the complete files of all law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies involved in the investigation and prosecution of the crime available. A witness\u2019s statement made during the investigation or prosecution must be turned over.\nAs the majority notes, the work product of the prosecuting attorney is still given protection, however. The pertinent statute states: \u201cThe State is not required to disclose written materials drafted by the prosecuting attorney or the prosecuting attorney\u2019s legal staff for their own use at trial, including witness examinations, voir dire questions, opening statements, and closing arguments.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-904(a) (2005) (emphasis added). It is our duty to reconcile both statutes and give meaning to each, if possible.\nIn the case at bar the Assistant District Attorney stated that he would have provided the defense with any exculpatory material had there been any, but only made notes to assist him in questioning the witness.\nThe majority evidently agrees that when a prosecutor writes down the questions he or she intends to ask the witness, that constitutes his or her \u201cwork product\u201d and is protected pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-904. Such writings are \u201cmaterials drafted by the prosecuting attorney . . . for their own use at trial, including witness examinations . ...\u201d Id. Such questions necessarily reveal the prosecutor\u2019s \u201copinions,\u201d \u201cstrategies,\u201d \u201ctheories,\u201d or \u201cconclusions,\u201d all of which are similarly protected. Id.\nIn the majority view this does not relieve the prosecutor of his or her duty under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-903 regarding the memorialization of a witness\u2019s \u201coral statements.\u201d To meet this obligation the prosecutor must either tape-record his witnesses\u2019 responses or prepare a written summary of those responses.\nTo follow the majority\u2019s logic, when a prosecutor meets with a witness and asks the witness questions, prepares the witness, and records his intended questions for that witness, he or she must simultaneously prepare a written or tape-recorded copy of the witness\u2019s responses for production to the defense. That would leave no protection for the prosecutor\u2019s \u201cwork product.\u201d\nThis rule places an unnecessary burden on the prosecutor, for it would apply to every witness the prosecutor interviews prior to trial, not just those who, like Daisy Shannon, had never been previously interviewed.\nI do not believe the legislature intended to place such a huge, redundant administrative burden on the District Attorney, nor do I believe the legislature intended to so thoroughly eviscerate the prosecutor\u2019s \u201cwork product\u201d exclusion.\nThus, I dissent.", "type": "concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part", "author": "McCULLOUGH, Judge," } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General, Amy G. Kunstling, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender, Constance E. Widenhouse, for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOAN MYRTLE SHANNON\nNo. COA06-418\n(Filed 3 April 2007)\n1. Evidence\u2014 prior crimes or bad acts \u2014 sexually suggestive photographs of defendant \u2014 motive\nThe trial court did not err in a first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder case by admitting three sexually suggestive photographs of defendant from a \u201cswingers\u201d party of March 2002, because: (1) the photographs helped support the State\u2019s contention that defendant wanted to be with another man, and that this constituted a motive to kill the husband victim; (2) the evidence illustrated the chain of events leading up to the victim\u2019s murder, and corroborated the existence of another man\u2019s sexual relationship with defendant; and (3) the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice when the trial court only permitted the admission of three of the eight photographs the State sought to introduce and directed that the photographs would be passed around to the jurors in a folder and not shown on an overhead projector.\n2. Evidence\u2014 defendant\u2019s sexual activities \u2014 pornographic and sex-related items \u2014 testimony about \u201cFayetteville Gang Bangers\u201d\nThe trial , court did not commit plain error in a first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder case by admitting evidence of defendant\u2019s sexual activities, pornographic and sex-related items, and testimony about the \u201cFayetteville Gang Bangers,\u201d because: (1) evidence regarding the Fayetteville Gang Bangers and defendant\u2019s sexual activities had probative value to help illustrate the swinger lifestyle, showed the events leading to defendant\u2019s relationship and desire to be with another man, and explained the story of the crime for the jury; and (2) the trial court\u2019s admission of the evidence, even if error, was not so fundamental as to result in a miscarriage of justice, nor would a different result have occurred in the absence of such evidence.\n3. Discovery\u2014 renewed discovery motion \u2014 prosecutors required to disclose, in written or recorded form, witness statements during pretrial interviews\nThe trial court erred by denying defense counsel\u2019s renewed discovery motion during trial seeking notes of one or more pretrial conversations or interviews that the prosecutor had with one of defendant\u2019s daughters, and defendant\u2019s assertion is treated as a motion for appropriate relief with the case being remanded for an evidentiary hearing, because: (1) the amended version of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-903(a)(l) requires prosecutors to disclose, in written or recorded form, statements made to them by witnesses during pretrial interviews; and (2) trial preparation interview notes might be discoverable except where they contain the opinions, theories, strategies, or conclusions of the prosecuting attorney or the prosecuting attorney\u2019s legal staff.\nJudge McCullough concurring in part and dissenting in part.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered 31 August 2005 by Judge James Hardin in Cumberland County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 December 2006.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General, Amy G. Kunstling, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender, Constance E. Widenhouse, for defendant." }, "file_name": "0350-01", "first_page_order": 382, "last_page_order": 397 }