the court discussed the plans for the trial’s daily schedule; the basics of publicity; security in the courtroom; the jury selection procedure, which had previously been discussed; and the availability of a jury questionnaire. There was also a brief, nonbinding review of pending motions and a discussion of the possibility of a motion to continue. After the trial court recorded what had been discussed at the pretrial hearing, defendant argued his motion to continue, which was denied. This case was called for trial on 7 September 1993. We conclude that since the conference at issue took place on 3 September 1993, prior to the commencement of defendant’s trial, no error, constitutional or otherwise, was committed. See State v. Rannels, 333 N.C. 644, 652, 430 S.E.2d 254, 258 (1993) (<HOLDING>); State v. Cole, 331 N.C. 272, 275, 415 S.E.2d
holding that it was error though harmless to exclude the defendant from inchamber conferences recognizing that a trial court has the authority before accepting a verdict and before discharging a jury to send the jury back to correct a mistake in its verdict but concluding that jury had been discharged because jury was allowed to return to court on following day and was allowed to deliberate same issue it previously had decided holding that it was not error to have private unrecorded sidebar conferences with potential jurors where conferences took place before calendar for session was called and before oath administered to jury holding that the state could not meet its burden of proving harmless error where the record did not reveal the substance of the trial courts unrecorded conversations with prospective jurors holding that we lack jurisdiction when a petitioner fails to argue before the bia that there is no evidence he was under oath during the asylum interview