prejudiced her. Id. ¶ 20. “Fundamental error” is “error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, [or] error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.” Id. ¶ 19. ¶ 17 We do not find any error, much less fundamental error. Forde made no showing that publicity about the Giffords shootings had a spill-over effect on Forde’s trial or created a carnival-like atmosphere in this ease. Although this ease and the Giffords shootings each involved the shooting death of a nine-year-old girl, this common element is insufficient to justify a presumption that the publicity surrounding the Giffords shootings deprived Forde of a fair trial. See State v. Lane, 334 N.C. 148, 431 S.E.2d 7, 9 (1993) (<HOLDING>). B. Motions to Continue ¶ 18 Forde argues that
holding that a change of venue was not warranted due to publicity surrounding an unrelated murder with common features because the defendant failed to establish any specific prejudice against him as a result of the publicity holding that there was no ineffective assistance due to appellate counsels failure to challenge the trial courts denial of the motion to change venue because the defendant failed to show actual prejudice holding that there was no abuse of discretion for denying the motion to change venue because although there had been some publicity surrounding the murder an independent review of the record demonstrates that there was no difficulty in seating the jury holding that the right of publicity is descendible holding that notwithstanding that the case generated massive pretrial publicity a motion to change venue was not improperly denied as such pretrial publicity was not presumptively prejudicial because it consisted of straight news stories relating cold hard facts 