On retrial; admissibility of evidence presented at defendant's MAR hearing following his first trial on the same charges; whether defendant should have been allowed to cross-examine the victim about her identification of him and a codefendant as perpetrators of the alleged crimes; whether the trial court should have barred introduction of evidence about the weapon purportedly used by defendant; whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering dismissal of all charges

Products liability action; N.C.G.S. § 99B-3.

Workers' Compensation; N.C.G.S. § 97-57; whether competent evidence supported Indus. Comm'n's findings on which insurance carrier had the risk for plaintiff?s asbestosis

Admission of police officer's testimony that defendant exercised his Miranda right to remain silent; plain error review

Motion to suppress evidence of DWI; whether one of the trial court's findings of fact was supported by substantial, competent evidence; whether police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle

When defendant was charged with first-degree murder, whether the trial court erred in also instructing the jury on second-degree murder; prejudicial effect of testimony from one of several expert witnesses; prejudicial effect of the trial court's failure to give the full pattern jury instruction on determination of aggravating factors

Application of corpus delicti rule to defendant's extrajudicial confession and conviction for four counts of sexual offense with a child; erroneous jury instructions

Sufficiency of evidence that defendant constructively possessed contraband found in a bedroom with indicia of domain present.

Professional malpractice action; grant of summary judgment in defendants' favor; whether plaintiff's expert witness met the requirements of Rule 9(j)(1)-that he was reasonably expected to qualify as an expert under Rule 702(b).

Whether, after concluding that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in granting defendant's motion to suppress, the Court of Appeals should have: (i) remanded the case to the trial court to reevaluate the evidence pursuant to the correct standard; or (ii) reversed the erroneous order without remand