The only questions before this Court are (1) whether the Court of Appeals applied the proper standard of review for plain error and (2) whether the trial court’s jury instructions regarding conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon rise to the level of plain error. Almost thirty years ago, in State v. Odom, we adopted the federal plain error rule for criminal cases. 307 N.C. 655, 660, 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 ( 0 (2011); State v. Jones, _ N.C. App. _, _, 703 S.E.2d 772, 774 (2010) (defining plain error as “so grave as to deny a fundamental right of the defendant so that, absent the error, the jury would have reached a different result”), vacating and remanding with instructions, _ N.C. _, 722 S.E.2d 509 (2012); State v. Walker, 139 N.C. App. 512, 520, 533 S.E.2d 858, 862 (2000) (<HOLDING>). These incomplete and inconsistent
recognizing plain or fundamental error holding that omission was not plain error holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding exclusion was harmless error