that a competent, fair, and impartial jury is impaneled, and its rulings in that regard will not be reversed absent a showing of an abuse of its discretion.” State v. Conaway, 339 N.C. 487, 508, 453 S.E.2d 824, 837-38, reconsideration denied, 339 N.C. 740, 457 S.E.2d 304 (1995). Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to ask the final question during jury voir dire. The purpose of the question was merely to screen potential jurors’ views on capital punishment. A reasonable interpretation of the prosecutor’s question is whether the juror could impose the death penalty if he or she found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. This inquiry is permissible. See State v. Zuniga, 320 N.C. 233, 250, 357 S.E.2d 898, 910 (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 959, 98 L. Ed. 2d 384
holding that no discovery is permissible in similar circumstances holding that though judge did not question juror individually note from juror to judge requesting private meeting to ask legal question did not suggest juror would not base verdict on evidence holding that a court must allow the defendant to ask in voir dire whether a potential juror would automatically impose the death penalty and suggesting that such a juror should be disqualified for cause holding that death sentence need not be set aside where one of three statutory aggravating circumstances found by juror was subsequently held to be invalid by state supreme court but other two were specifically upheld and stating that the absence of legislature or courtimposed standards to govern the jury in weighing the significance of either or both of those aggravating circumstances does not render capital sentencing statute invalid as applied holding that it was permissible to ask whether a juror would consider death sentence if juror determined aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances