engagement of experts[,]” McDonald, 191 at 786, 663 S.E.2d at 465, the additional days to prepare after receiving notice of the nature and extent of defendant’s entrapment defense should have been sufficient to remedy any prejudice to the State. In any event, the State would not have been prejudiced had the trial court imposed a less severe sanction such as a continuance or a recess. After considering the totality of the circumstances, we hold that the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on'the entrapment defense was not a proper sanction for any failure by defendant to provide sufficiently specific notice of his intent to assert the. defense of entrapment. The trial court’s ruling, therefore, constituted an abuse of discretion. See Dorman, _ N.C. App. at _, 737 S.E.2d at 470 (<HOLDING>). Conclusion We hold that defendant presented
holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony on inmate code of silence to show witness bias and help explain why the government failed to call certain witnesses holding trial courts pretrial order suppressing certain witnesses testimony from use in future proceedings based on states initial failure to disclose various documented conversations was in error when defendant was in possession of the relevant information well before trial and trial court failed to detail specific and continuing prejudice defendant suffered as a result of initial nondisclosure and failed to explain how suppression of witnesses testimony remedied nondisclosure holding that the trial courts failure to have each bench conference and ruling properly transcribed was not reversible error when the defendant failed to show that he was prevented from presenting any relevant evidence and failed to establish that any prejudice resulted from the absence in the record holding that review by certiorari was available to remedy a trial court order that improperly struck two of the states witnesses as a sanction for the states failure to disclose the address of one of the witnesses in discovery holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial