police presence and go about his business.” Williams, 201 N.C. App. at 569, 686 S.E.2d at 907 (citation omitted). We also note that, along with the great deference we give to the trial court to hear testimony and find facts, in the present case, the trial court was in a better position to review evidence that is not accessible and reviewable by this Court on appeal; namely, whatever demonstration was given by Corporal Necessary as to the positioning of himself and his police cruiser on the sidewalk. “ [I]t is the appellant who has the burden in the first instance of demonstrating error from the record on appeal.” State v. Adams, 335 N.C. 401, 409, 439 S.E.2d 760, 764 (1994) (emphasis in original); see also State v. Milby and State v. Boyd, 302 N.C. 137, 141, 273 S.E.2d 716, 719 (1981) (<HOLDING>). It is the State, as appellant, who has the
holding the exclusion of cumulative evidence was not prejudicial error holding state prisoners proceeding under  2241 must be granted a coa before their claims can be considered on the merits holding that where a defendant controlled the board of directors it is manifest then that there can be no expectation that the corporation would sue him and if it did it can hardly be said that the prosecution of the suit would be entrusted to proper hands holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding that the appellant must make the irregularity manifest before it can be considered a basis for prejudicial error