An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Proced ure.

NO. COA02-1355

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 3 June 2003

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Mecklenburg County
                                No. 00 CRS 51717
ALAN BERLIN AUTRY

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 6 December 2001 by Judge James E. Lanning in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 June 2003.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Gaines M. Weaver, for the State.

    Allen W. Boyer for defendant-appellant.

    TYSON, Judge.

    Alan Berlin Autry (“defendant”) appeals his jury conviction of robbery with a dangerous weapon. N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-87 (2001). We find no error.

I. Background

    The State presented evidence tending to show that on the evening of 27 October 2000 two black males, both armed with guns, approached Miguel Rios and his common law wife, Kit Villela Keedy, whose name also appears in the record as Ms. Keedy Villela and as Ms. Villeal, as they worked on their automobile. One of the men pushed Rios against a wall, searched through Rios' pockets, and took Rios' wallet containing, inter alia, an ATM card and $140 in cash. Rios and Keedy identified defendant as one of the perpetrators.    Defendant presented an alibi defense.
II. Issues

    Defendant presents three assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred by dismissing nine jurors passed upon by the defendant and the prosecution and by starting jury selection anew, (2) the court erred by overruling his objections to re-cross examination by the prosecutor, and (3) the court committed plain error by failing to censure the prosecutor, give a curative instruction, or declare a mistrial after sustaining defendant's objection to the prosecutor's closing argument.
III. Jury Selection

    Defendant contends the court erred by dismissing nine jurors passed upon by the defendant and the prosecution and by starting jury selection anew. The record shows that during the course of jury selection, defendant challenged the prosecutor's exercise of a peremptory challenge to a black juror. The court ruled that a racially discriminatory motive for the exercise of the peremptory challenge had not been shown. The court resumed the process of jury selection. After the jury was passed to defendant, the prosecutor objected to defendant's exercise of a peremptory challenge to exclude a naturalized American citizen from Spain. The court reconsidered its prior ruling and ordered that jury selection start all over the next morning. Both the prosecutor and defendant vocalized their consent to the court's decision. Having obtained the relief he initially sought and having consented to starting jury selection anew, defendant will not be heard tocomplain on appeal. “A defendant is not prejudiced by the granting of relief which he has sought or by error resulting from his own conduct.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(c) (2001). This assignment of error is overruled.
IV. Waiver

    Defendant next contends the court erred by overruling his objections to re-cross examination by the prosecutor inquiring: (1) “Isn't it true that you have bragged to other individuals about committing this robbery?”; and (2) “You never bragged about robbing Mr. Rios and Ms. Villela?”. He argues the questions are unsupported by any evidence.
    We first note that defendant did not object to the second question. He thereby waived his objection to the first question. State v. Ramey, 318 N.C. 457, 462, 349 S.E.2d 566, 570 (1986). Moreover, counsel is to be given wide latitude in cross examination and is limited only by the discretion of the trial judge and the requirement of good faith. State v. Warren, 327 N.C. 364, 373, 395 S.E.2d 116, 121-22 (1990). Questions will be presumed to be proper unless the record shows that they were asked in bad faith. State v. Dawson, 302 N.C. 581, 586, 276 S.E.2d 348, 352 (1981). Nothing in the present record indicates the questions were asked in bad faith. Finally, we fail to perceive how defendant was unfairly prejudiced when he answered the questions in the negative. See State v. Shamsid-Deen, 324 N.C. 437, 450, 379 S.E.2d 842, 850 (1989). This assignment of error is overruled.
V. Failure to Cure Objection
    Defendant contends the court committed plain error by failing to censure the prosecutor, give a curative instruction, or declare a mistrial after sustaining defendant's objection to the prosecutor's closing argument that defendant was attempting to make the jury think less of the victim because the victim is Hispanic. Generally, “it is not error for the trial court to fail to give a curative instruction after sustaining an objection, when defendant does not request such an instruction.” State v. Williams, 350 N.C. 1, 24, 510 S.E.2d 626, 642, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 880, 145 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1999). The court's action in promptly sustaining defendant's objection effectively cured any prejudice. See State v. Rowsey, 343 N.C. 603, 628, 472 S.E.2d 903, 916 (1996).
VI. Conclusion

    Defendant received a fair trial, free of prejudicial errors he assigned and argued. Defendant's assignments of error are overruled.
    No error.    
    Judges WYNN and STEELMAN concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***