Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that defendant was not entitled to a new trial based on the trial court's decision to exclude evidence found on the victim's cell phone.

Whether, under Delaware law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing applies to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. Whether the trial court erred in its holding regarding defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding breach of contract, misrepresentations within a letter of intent, misrepresentations regarding contract amendment, and the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Whether the trial court erred in its holdings on 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss regarding claims of fraud by omission, promissory fraud, fraud, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a party's request for leave to file a second amended complaint. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in a discovery order ruling under Business Court Rule 10.9. Whether claims alleging negligent misrepresentation must rise to the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

Evidence taken in the light most favorable to the State was sufficient to support the trial court's decision to instruct the jury on the aggressor doctrine even in circumstances involving the defense of habitation.

Whether defendant's capital trial and sentence of death were free of error or prejudicial error as regards defendant's motions for the trial judge to recuse himself or be disqualified and various evidentiary and jury selection issues.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by vacating defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon because the indictment was fatally defective.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing and remanding the opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission approving plaintiff's workers' compensation claim.

Whether the State's petition alleging juvenile delinquency for the criminal offense of sexual battery contained facts sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court.

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by determining that defendant held attorney-client privilege under the litigation engagement letter.

Whether there was competent evidence upon which the trial court could conclude that defendant had committed additional criminal offenses in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation.