a defendant has the right to be present at every stage of his trial; and if a defendant is being tried for a capital felony, that right cannot be waived. State v. Huff, 325 N.C. 1, 29, 381 S.E.2d 635, 651 (1989), sentence vacated, 497 U.S. 1021, 111 L. Ed. 2d 777 (1990), on remand, 328 N.C. 532, 402 S.E.2d 577 (1991). Not every error caused by a defend ant’s absence requires reversal as these errors are subject to a harmless-error analysis. Id. at 33, 381 S.E.2d at 653. To begin, we consider the instance when defendant was not present for the pretrial conference. On 7 September 1993 the trial court noted for the record that on 3 September 1993 a conference was held at which defendant was not present although his attorneys were. According to the trial court, at the c 6, 717 (1992) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Chapman, 342 N.C. 330, 464
holding that defendants constitutional right to be present at all stages of his trial does not arise before the trial begins holding that the defendant is entitled to be present at all stages of his trial  and a judges response to a note from the jury is one of those stages holding that an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review not merely at the time the complaint is filed holding that rule 43aentitles a defendant to be present at all stages of his trial and that cjommunication between the judge and the jury or a single juror is one of those stages holding that the right to counsel applies in all critical stages of state and federal criminal proceedings