of his brief, which he does not concede have been decided against him. First, defendant argues that the trial court committed plain error by erroneously instructing the jury on theories of guilt and premeditation and deliberation that were not supported by the evidence. Specifically, defendant argues that the trial court should not have instructed that evidence of the “use of grossly excessive force” could be used to infer premeditation and deliberation. Defendant did not object to the instruction at trial. In State v. Smith, 328 N.C. 99, 138, 400 S.E.2d 712, 734 (1991), this Court held that there was evidence of the use of grossly excessive force where the defendant shot the victim two times at close range. See also State v. Cummings, 326 N.C. 298, 316-17, 389 S.E.2d 66, 76-77 (1990) (<HOLDING>). The evidence in this case supported a finding
holding that the trial court did not err in charging the jury that the defendant was in the custody of the victim officer when he shot and killed the officer due to the undisputed evidence presented at trial including the defendants pretrial statement to police admitting that fact holding that before a defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of the victims character for violence there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim was the first aggressor and that once the defendant testified that he was attacked and cut by the victim without provocation before using the victims utility tool to stab the victim the defendant was clearly entitled to question the victim about past acts of violence reflected in court documents from the state of oregon holding that the erroneous admission of a hearsay statement that identified the defendant as the shooter was harmless where the defendant never contested that he shot the gun but claimed only that he shot in selfdefense holding that there was evidence of grossly excessive force where the defendant shot the victim once in the arm and then in the base of the skull holding that fact that plaintiffs arm was broken during tackle did not constitute excessive force