Dеfendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by permitting the jury during deliberation to take three witnesses’ statements into the jury room in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1233, which statute provides in relevant part:
“(b) Upon request by the jury and with consent of all parties, the judge may in his discretion permit the jury to take to the jury room exhibits and writings which have been received in evidence. If the judge permits the jury to take to the jury rоom requested exhibits and writings, he may have the jury take additional material or first review оther evidence relating to the same issue so as not to give undue prominence to the exhibits or writings taken to the jury room. If the judge permits an exhibit to be taken to the jury room, he must, upon request, instruct the jury not to conduct any experiments with the exhibit.” [Emphasis added.]
We do not agree with defendant’s contention. There is no doubt that, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1233(b), supra, it was error for the trial court to submit the statements to the jury without the consent of dеfendant. The question before us, then, is whether such error is sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. “A 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 questiоn not been committed, a different result would *363 have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises. The burden of showing such prejudice under this subsection is upon the defendant ... .” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(a).
Defendant, however, correctly cites
Gooding v. Pope,
We note, however, that in
State v. Haltom,
We have carefully considered dеfendant’s argument that the error was in fact prejudicial because the three written statements, set out in detail above, presented the State’s case in the strongest possible light while points elicited during the trial testimony of Betty Smith and Phyllis Denise LeSane, also *364 set out in detail above, were not allowed to be taken back to the jury room. In particular, defendant argues that the statements sent to the jury room did not fully show that McCoy was the aggressor, as did the testimony presented at trial. We note, however, thаt the statement of Betty Mae Smith sent to the jury room did in fact indicate that “Pondie got mad”; that Pondie said that defendant owed Betty money and that defendant and Pondie arguеd while in defendant’s house. That Pon-die said he would “up” defendant as well as defendant’s statement that Pondie was “messing” with him were also included in defendant’s statement sent to the jury. Thе evidence against defendant, both the testimony presented at trial and that prеsented in the statements sent to the jury, was substantial. Even considering that testimony showing Ms. Smith’s relatiоnship to the deceased, hence her potential bias, was not sent to the jury rоom, such evidence was presented to the jury at trial. Defendant has failed to mеet his burden of showing how the alleged error would have changed the outcome оf the trial.
For the same reason, we find that the error, if any, of the trial court in failing to submit defendant’s first statement to the jury is without prejudice to the defendant. In addition, we note thаt N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1233(b) does not require a trial judge to submit all other statements to the jury and, in light of the fаct that a portion of defendant’s first statement had been deleted, we cannоt say that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the j ury to take this statement into the j ury room.
No error.