was not prejudicial. Covington’s IAC claims are overruled. B. Kidnapping Instruction Covington argues that the trial court committed plain error in its instruction to the jury on first-degree kidnapping. We disagree. Specifically, Covington asserts that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that, in order to find him guilty of first-degree kidnapping, it must find that the restraint or removal of Batts was “a separate, complete act independent of and apart from the injury or terror to the victim” rather than “a separate, complete act, independent of and apart from [] the assault and robbery charged in this case." Covington did not object to the instruction at trial and, thus, argues plain error on appeal. State v. Goforth, 170 N.C. App. 584, 587, 614 S.E.2d 313, 315 (2005) (<HOLDING>). [T]he plain error rule ... is always to be
holding that a defendant who fails to object to an error at a plea colloquy hearing must satisfy the plain error rule holding that defendants who do not object to jury instructions at trial are subject to a plain error standard of review on appeal holding that litigant must object at trial to preserve error for review holding that the plain error and harmless error standards of review merge in the ease of jury instructions because the duty to properly instruct the jury lies with the trial court holding that the courts review is conducted under the plain error standard