Mr. Handy with a deadly weapon, thereby proximately causing his death .... (Emphasis added). Also, in recapping its instructions on second degree murder, the trial court stated the following: If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about December 19th of 2003 [defendant], acting by himself or together with others, intentionally and with malice . . . wounded Mr. Handy with a deadly weapon, thereby proximately causing Mr. Handy’s death, it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty to second-degree murder. (Emphasis added). We hold that the trial court’s lapse in stating “with a deadly weapon” when describing the State’s theory as to the element of malice did not prejudice defendant. See State v. Perez, 182 N.C. App. 294, 300, 641 S.E.2d 844, 849 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, this assignment of error is
holding appellate courts must consider the trial courts jury charge as a whole holding that because trial court actually gave part of a jury charge that appellant claimed was improperly omitted and because remainder of courts charge adequately defined one of the legal terms at issue the courts jury charge taken as a whole was not misleading and did not constitute reversible error holding that although portion of trial courts jury charge was inapplicable any error in providing it was harmless in light of the fact that charge considered as a whole was not likely to confuse or mislead the jury holding that whether a jury charge comments on weight of evidence is determined by looking at the jury charge as a whole not isolated statements holding that where the charge viewed as a whole contextually leaves no reasonable cause to believe the jury was misled there was no prejudicial error