still would have held that the error was constitutional absent the involvement of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Defendant also cites Darden v Wainwright, 477 US 168; 106 S Ct 2464; 91 L Ed 2d 144 (1986) (in evaluating a prosecutorialmisconduct claim, the Court asked whether the conduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process; the Court did not indicate whether error was constitutional); Donnelly, supra at 640-645 (observing that the respondent’s “claims of constitutional error” focused on remarks made by the prosecutor and holding that the errors did not render the respondent’s trial so fundamentally unfair as to deny him due process); Berger v United States, 295 US 78; 55 S Ct 629; 79 L Ed 1314 (1935) (<HOLDING>). But none of these decisions holds that
holding new trial was warranted where trial court did not make adequate determination pursuant to nc gen stat  15a1242 whether defendants decision to proceed pro se was knowingly intelligently and voluntarily made holding that prosecutorial misconduct was harmless in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt holding prosecutorial misconduct claim barred by procedural default holding that a new trial was warranted where prejudice stemming from prosecutorial misconduct was highly probable court did not indicate whether error was constitutional holding that evidence consisting of the testimony of three witnesses who each had motives to lie was not overwhelming and that prosecutorial misconduct therefore was not harmless error