Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 179 S.E.2d 315, 319 (1971) (quoting State v. Barefoot, 241 N.C. 650, 657, 86 S.E.2d 424, 429 (1955)). Therefore, “the appellate courts ordinarily will not review the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion [regarding jury arguments] unless the impropriety of counsel’s remarks is extreme and is clearly calculated to prejudice the jury in its deliberations.” Johnson, 298 N.C. at 369, 259 S.E.2d at 761; see also Thompson, 278 N.C. at 283, 179 S.E.2d at 319 (stating “[i]t is only in extreme cases of the abuse of privilege by counsel, and when this is not checked by the court, and the jury is not properly cautioned, [the appellate courts] can intervene and grant a new trial.” ). “ 96 S.Ct. 3203, 49 L.Ed.2d 1205 (1976); State v. Jordan, 49 N.C. App. 561, 569, 272 S.E.2d 405, 410 (1980) (<HOLDING>). In fact, the existence of overwhelming 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prosecutors statements regarding his opinion as to the truthfulness of a defense witness considering the evidence against the defendant did not reach the level of the grossly improper statements which would require the trial court to correct them ex mero motu (B) holding that where a defendant expressly manifested his belief in the truth of the statements contained in the motion to dismiss thereby adopting those statements as his own such statements are admissible against the defendant in the states case in chief (C) holding that statements to the jury made by the prosecutor asserting that a defense witness was lying was improper but considering all the facts and circumstances revealed in the record which showed overwhelming evidence against the defendant such statements did not constitute a prejudicial error (D) holding that the prosecutors argument attacking the integrity of defense counsel was of such gross impropriety as to justify ex mero mo tu correction however in light of the strong and convincing case against the defendant we could not hold that the prosecutrixs improper comments were sufficiently prejudicial as to require a new trial (E) holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to intervene ex mero motu to prevent closing argument by the prosecutor that the defendant lied during his testimony
Output (English): holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to intervene ex mero motu to prevent closing argument by the prosecutor that the defendant lied during his testimony