State v. Oakes, 209 N.C. App. 18 (Jan. 4, 2011)

The prosecutor’s statements during closing argument were not so grossly improper as to require the trial court to intervene ex mero motu. Although disapproving a prosecutor’s comparisons between criminal defendants and animals, the court concluded that the prosecutor’s statements equating the defendant’s actions to a hunting tiger were not grossly improper; the statements helped to explain the State’s theory of premeditated and deliberate murder.