concurrence">BEASLEY, Judge

concurring in a separate opinion.

While I concur with the result in the majority opinion, I am compelled to write separately on the issues below.

Defendant did not preserve his objection to Mr. Archie’s testimony and requested that we review his argument applying the plain error standard. However, Defendant did not specifically argue this. I agree with the majority that N.C. R. App. P. 28 (b)(6) dictates our actions on this issue and that Defendant’s argument is deemed abandoned. As any further analysis of Defendant’s contentions is unnecessary, my analysis on this issue would cease here.

*398It is worth noting however, that the Defendant argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting Mr. Archie’s testimony about Mr. Archie and Defendant’s relationship as noted by the dialogue set forth in the majority opinion.

Q. Okay. While you and Martavious Curry were becoming friends, what type of activities did you all participate in? And I’m talking about such as playing cards, going to the movies, generally, what types of things did you all do together to become friends?

A. We just hung out. You know what I’m saying? Just hang out, sell drugs.

MR. ANTHONY: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled

The majority opinion correctly states this series of questioning. However, it was not the question to which Defendant objected, but the answer. As it was unlikely that Defendant’s counsel anticipated that Mr. Archie would testify that he and Defendant sold drugs, the only logical opportunity for Defendant’s counsel to object was after the witness had answered the question. See State v. Goss, 293 N.C. 147, 155, 235 S.E.2d 844, 850 (1977) (“Where inadmissibility of testimony is not indicated by the question, but appears only in the witness’ response, the proper form of objection is a motion to strike the answer, or the objectionable part of it, made as soon as the inadmissibility is evident”).

However, I agree with the majority that pursuant to well-grounded law in North Carolina, Defendant waived this issue. Defendant’s counsel asked the trial court to repeat its ruling, whereby the prosecutor again asked Mr. Archie about the manner by which he and Defendant established a relationship, Mr. Archie essentially repeated his answer that he and the Defendant “hung out and sell drugs” and the trial court repeated its ruling, overruling Defendant’s objection. Defendant’s counsel did not move to strike, nor renew his objection, therefore this issue was not preserved for our review. Id.; State v. Alford, 339 N.C. 562, 570, 453 S.E.2d 512, 516 (1995). Further, any error that may have resulted from the unfavorable testimony provided by Mr. Archie was harmless.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress