STROUD, Judge.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of felony eluding arrest and sentenced to a suspended sentence of 5 to 6 months. From the judgment entered, defendant appeals and raises the sole issue that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a recorded charge conference.
At trial the State presented evidence that on 24 March 2006 Sergeant Michael D. Weaver ("Sergeant Weaver") observed defendant driving in excess of 100 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour speed zone. Sergeant Weaver activated his blue lights and siren and pursued defendant along the highway. Sergeant Weaver paced defendant at about 115 miles per hour. Other vehicles on the road had to take evasive action to avoid defendant as he sped by and around them. Defendant then crossed three lanes to exit the highway, causing Sergeant Weaver to "jump" a concrete median in order to follow. Sergeant Weaver caught up with defendant and pulled behind him with his blue lights flashing and horn sounding. Defendant finally pulled over and stopped. Defendant testified in his defense that he was speeding but that he was concentrating on the road and did not see Sergeant Weaver behind him until just before he pulled over and stopped.
At the close of all the evidence the trial judge and attorneys held a brief off-the-record bench conference. The attorneys gave closing statements to the jury and then the trial judge instructed the jury. After discussing the elements of the charged offense of felonious operation of a motor vehicle to elude arrest, the court asked the attorneys if they had anything to add and defense counsel responded, "None from the defense." The trial court gave further general instructions to the jury, the jury left the courtroom to deliberate, and the court again asked the attorneys if they had anything to say regarding the instructions as given. Defense counsel stated, "Nothing from the defense, Your Honor."
Defendant argues the trial court erred by not holding a recorded charge conference and that he was materially prejudiced by this error. North Carolina General Statute § 15A-1231(b) provides,
Before the arguments to the jury, the judge must hold a recorded conference on instructions out of the presence of the jury. At the conference the judge must inform the parties of the offenses, lesser included offenses, and affirmative defenses on which he will charge the jury and must inform them of what, if any, parts of tendered instructions will be given. A party is also entitled to be informed, upon request, whether the judge intends to include other particular instructions in his charge to the jury. The failure of the judge to comply fully with the provisions of this subsection does not constitute grounds for appeal unless his failure, not corrected prior to the end of the trial, materially prejudiced the case of the defendant.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1231(b) (2005). Our Supreme Court has held that where both sides agree to the instructions as given and do not object or request additional instructions, defendant cannot show he was materially prejudiced by the lack of a recorded charge conference. E.g., State v. Wiley, 355 N.C. 592, 631, 565 S.E.2d 22, 49 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1117, 154 L.Ed. 2d 795 (2003); State v. Wise, 326 N.C. 421, 432, 390 S.E.2d 142, 149, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 853, 112 L.Ed. 2d 113 (1990).
Defendant contends the lack of a recorded charge conference materially prejudiced his defense because he was unable to (i) tailor his closing argument to the intended jury instructions, and (ii) review the substantive offense instructions before they were submitted to the jury.
Defendant had two opportunities, however, to object to the instructions as given and he declined to do so. His attempts to distinguish this case from previous cases finding no prejudice where the jury instructions were not challenged are not convincing. The holdings in Wiley and Wise are directly on point and controlling in this case and we find that defendant failed to show material prejudice where he did not object to the jury instructions when given a chance to do so. See Wiley at 631, 565 S.E.2d at 49; Wise at 432, 390 S.E.2d at 149. This assignment of error is overruled.
No error.
Judges McGEE and ARROWOOD concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).