Jury Instructions
In General
"It is a well-established principle in this jurisdiction that in reviewing jury instructions for error, they must be considered and reviewed in their entirety. Where the trial court adequately instructs the jury as to the law on every material aspect of the case arising from the evidence and applies the law fairly to variant factual situations presented by the evidence, the charge is sufficient. Murrow v. Daniels, 321 N.C. 494, 497, 364 S.E.2d 392, 395 (1988) (citations omitted).
"[T]he trial court has wide discretion in presenting the issues to the jury and no abuse of discretion will be found where the issues are 'sufficiently comprehensive to resolve all factual controversies and to enable the court to render judgment fully determining the cause.' Murrow v. Daniels, 321 N.C. 494, 499-500, 364 S.E.2d 392, 396 (1988) (quoting Chalmers v. Womack, 269 N.C. 433, 435-36, 152 S.E.2d 505, 507 (1967)).
"[T]he preferred method of jury instruction is the use of the approved guidelines of the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instructions.' 'Jury instructions in accord with a previously approved pattern jury instruction provide the jury with an understandable explanation of the law.' Henry v. Knudsen, 203 N.C. App. 510, 519, 692 S.E.2d 878, 884 (citations omitted) (quoting In re Will of Leonard, 71 N.C. App. 714, 717, 323 S.E.2d 377, 379 (1984) and Carrington v. Emory, 179 N.C. App. 827, 829, 635 S.E.2d 532, 534 (2006)), disc. review denied, 364 N.C. 602, 703 S.E.2d 446 (2010).
"[W]here a party fails to object to jury instructions, 'it is conclusively presumed that the instructions conformed to the issues submitted and were without legal error.' Madden v. Carolina Door Controls, Inc., 117 N.C. App. 56, 62, 449 S.E.2d 769, 773 (1994) (quoting Dailey v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp., 75 N.C. App. 387, 399, 331 S.E.2d 148, 156, disc. review denied, 314 N.C. 664, 336 S.E.2d 399 (1985)).
"On appeal, this Court considers a jury charge contextually and in its entirety. The charge will be held to be sufficient if it presents the law of the case in such manner as to leave no reasonable cause to believe the jury was misled or misinformed. The party asserting error bears the burden of showing that the jury was misled or that the verdict was affected by an omitted instruction. Under such a standard of review, it is not enough for the appealing party to show that error occurred in the jury instructions; rather, it must be demonstrated that such error was likely, in light of the entire charge, to mislead the jury. Hammel v. USF Dugan, Inc., 178 N.C. App. 344, 347, 631 S.E.2d 174, 178 (2006) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Specific Instructions
"[R]equests for special instructions -- i.e., non-pattern jury instructions -- must be submitted to the trial court in writing prior to the charge conference. Requests for special instructions not made in compliance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-181 and Rule 51(b) may be denied at the trial court's discretion. Swink v. Weintraub, 195 N.C. App. 133, 155, 672 S.E.2d 53, 67-68 (2009) (citations omitted), disc. review denied, 363 N.C. 812, 693 S.E.2d 352 (2010).
"'[W]hen a request is made for a specific instruction, correct in itself and supported by evidence, the trial court, while not obliged to adopt the precise language of the prayer, is nevertheless required to give the instruction, in substance at least, and unless this is done, either in direct response to the prayer or otherwise in some portion of the charge, the failure will constitute reversible error.' Erie Ins. Exch. v. Bledsoe, 141 N.C. App. 331, 335, 540 S.E.2d 57, 60 (2000) (quoting Calhoun v. State Highway & Pub. Works Com., 208 N.C. 424, 426, 181 S.E. 271, 272 (1935)), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 371, 547 S.E.2d 442 (2001).
"When reviewing the refusal of a trial court to give certain instructions requested by a party to the jury, this Court must decide whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a reasonable inference by the jury of the elements of the claim. If the instruction is supported by such evidence, the trial court's failure to give the instruction is reversible error. Ellison v. Gambill Oil Co., 186 N.C. App. 167, 169, 650 S.E.2d 819, 821 (2007) (citations omitted), aff'd per curiam and disc. review improvidently allowed, 363 N.C. 364, 677 S.E.2d 452 (2009).
"A specific jury instruction should be given when '(1) the requested instruction was a correct statement of law and (2) was supported by the evidence, and that (3) the instruction given, considered in its entirety, failed to encompass the substance of the law requested and (4) such failure likely misled the jury.' Outlaw v. Johnson, 190 N.C. App. 233, 243, 660 S.E.2d 550, 559 (2008) (quoting Liborio v. King, 150 N.C. App. 531, 534, 564 S.E.2d 272, 274, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 304, 570 S.E.2d 726 (2002)).