15A-1055 of the North Carolina General Statutes provides that “ [notwithstanding any other rule of evidence to the contrary, any party may examine a witness testifying . . . pursuant to [a plea arrangement] with respect to that . . . arrangement.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1055 (1988). Our case law also holds that “cross-examination is a proper method of testing a witness as to bias concerning ... his just expectation of reward, pardon, or parole as the result of his testifying for the State.” State v. Wilson, 322 N.C. 117, 135, 367 S.E.2d 589, 600 (1988). However, we have also held that where a question concerning plea arrangements calls for legal knowledge on the part of a lay witness, the State’s objection is properly sustained. Id.; accord State v. Mason, 295 N.C. 584, 248 S.E.2d 241 (1978) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 984, 60 L. Ed. 2d 246
holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand holding that because the line of questioning was not relevant to the credibility of the witness and sought information about which the witness had no knowledge it was not a constitutional violation to sustain the objection holding that it is within the discretion of the trial judge to sustain the states objection where questions to a witness go to his understanding of the law concerning parole and call for the legal knowledge of a lay witness holding that mistrial was warranted for trial court allowing questions concerning prior malpractice lawsuits against witness because evidence of prior malpractice actions against a witness is not relevant to the witness competency or knowledge