Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting testimony from the State's expert in fingerprint identification that tied defendant to the crimes for which he was convicted.

Whether defendant, who, along with two accomplices, participated in a series of armed robberies over a two- to three-hour period, engaged in a single conspiracy or in multiple conspiracies to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon.

Whether an indigent defendant made a sufficient showing of 'materiality' under N.C.G.S. 15A-269 to require the trial court to appoint counsel to assist with his post-conviction motion for DNA testing to support his claim of innocence.

Appeal from trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence; whether the warrantless search of the room in defendant's apartment in which contraband was found was constitutional; whether seizure of the contraband was permissible under the 'plain view' doctrine.

Appeal from trial court's refusal to release defendants from jail due to their continued failure to comply with conditions imposed in an order of civil contempt; whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court's order when the trial court did not consider defendants' evidence that they are unable to comply with the contempt order, as required under N.C.G.S. 5A-21(a)(3).

Confession by juvenile defendant while under police interrogation; whether defendant's motion to suppress should have been allowed under N.C.G.S. § 7B-2101 because the confession was not made knowingly and voluntarily.

Motion for appropriate relief after defendant was convicted of first-degree murder; whether defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel after counsel did not withdraw from representing him at trial so that she could offer exculpatory testimony on defendant's behalf.

Whether the indictment charging defendant with having attained habitual felon status was fatally defective.

Complaint alleging medical malpractice; whether plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 9(j) before expiration of the statute of limitations requires dismissal of the action if the complaint alleges facts sounding in ordinary negligence, for which a Rule 9(j) certification is not required.