State v. Hammonds, 218 N.C. App. 158

Hammonds was convicted of felonious larceny of a firearm, misdemeanor larceny, assault on a government officer, and resisting an officer.
During voir dire, juror 8 admitted lunching with a district attorney’s office member; trial court reopened voir dire after questioning.
Defendant sought to exercise a remaining peremptory challenge to excuse juror 8; the court denied the request.
Holden and Thomas require allowing a peremptory challenge when voir dire is reopened and challenges remain.
The trial court’s ruling led to a reversible error and a new trial was mandated by Holden and Thomas.
The appellate issue also involved whether defendant’s notice of appeal was adequate; the court ultimately proceeded to merits via certiorari.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reopening voir dire required allowing remaining peremptory challenges	Hammonds	Hammonds	New trial warranted
Whether notice of appeal adequacy affected review	State and Hammonds	Hammonds	Certiorari review allowed; merits reached despite defects
Whether the appeal was procedurally defective but review was still possible	State and Hammonds	Hammonds	Review permitted under Rule 21; merits addressed

State v. Holden, 346 N.C. 404 (1997) (reopening voir dire requires absolute right to use remaining peremptories when jury is reopened)
State v. Thomas, 195 N.C.App. 593 (2009) (after trial impanelling, voir dire reopened; remaining peremptories must be allowed)
Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191 (2008) (jurisdictional default generally bars appeal but certiorari may be used in appropriate circumstances)
In re I.T.P-L., 194 N.C.App. 453 (2008) (certiorari review when timely notices exist despite defects)