It is generally considered an abuse of discretion to permit counsel “to ‘stake out’ a prospective juror in advance regarding what his decision might be under certain specific factual scenarios . . . .” State v. Jaynes, 353 N.C. 534, 549, 549 S.E.2d 179, 192 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 934, 152 L. Ed. 2d 220 (2002). The question presented to the potential jurors in this case was not directed at discerning whether the potential jurors would believe Wilds in spite of his having agreed to a plea bargain, but whether the jurors would be able to consider his testimony notwithstanding his having agreed to a plea bargain. This question is proper as it is directed at the potential juror’s ability to be fair and impartial. See State v. Conner, 335 N.C. 618, 644, 440 S.E.2d 826, 841 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Next, defendant argues the trial court erred
holding trial court did not err by refusing to allow counsel to question potential jurors on personal exposure to sexual assault and instead asking all jurors a general question about fairness and impartiality in a sexual assault case holding that the trial court did not err by allowing the prosecution to question prospective jurors regarding their ability to announce a death sentence in an appropriate case holding that the obligation to pay unallocated support would automatically terminate upon the recipients death holding that questions by defense counsel as to whether prospective jurors would be able to consider a life sentence in a particular case or would automatically vote for death upon conviction were proper to discern impartiality and fairness holding that the trial court did not err by refusing to ask whether prospective jurors would place a greater amount of weight upon the testimony of law enforcement officers over that of the defendants