In State v. Goodman, 149 N.C. App. 57, 560 S.E.2d 196 (2002), the Court noted that "misdemeanor death by vehicle is a lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter." Goodman at 63, 560 S.E.2d at 200. After observing that "the jury had rejected involuntary manslaughter in favor of second degree murder," this Court reasoned that the jury "would also have rejected the lesser offense of misdemeanor death by vehicle." Id. at 63, 560 S.E.2d at 200-01. In State v. Goodman, 149 N.C. App. 57, 560 S.E.2d 196 (2002), rev'd in part per curiam for reasons stated in the dissent, 357 N.C. 43, 577 S.E.2d 619 (2003), the defendant argued that the trial court committed plain error by admitting his entire driving record. Id. at 66-67, 560 S.E.2d at 202-03. Specifically, the defendant argued the trial court violated Rule 404(b) because many of the previous convictions were too remote in time. Id. at 66-68, 560 S.E.2d at 202-03. In Goodman, the majority recognized that in State v. Miller, 142 N.C. App. 435, 543 S.E.2d 201 (2001), this Court held that "the defendant's prior driving convictions dating as far back as sixteen years could be used to establish the defendant acted with malice when he hit the decedent while driving under the influence of alcohol." Goodman, 149 N.C. App. at 61, 560 S.E.2d at 199 (citing Miller, 142 N.C. App. at 439, 543 S.E.2d at 204). The majority in Goodman held that the trial court erred by admitting the defendant's entire driving record, which stretched back thirty-seven years, because some of the convictions were too remote in time and were not probative of the defendant's malice in the crime charged. Id. at 68, 560 S.E.2d at 203. However, the majority stated that "in light of the defendant's numerous convictions, including four convictions for driving while intoxicated or impaired which occurred within the approximate time-frame held to be permissible in Miller, we hold admission of the entire record did not prejudice the defendant to the extent required under a plain error analysis." Id. The dissent stated as follows: In this case, the admission of the defendant's driving record dating back to 1962 (some 37 years) violates the temporal proximity requirement of Rule 404(b) and thus constitutes error. Although the defendant has six prior driving while impaired convictions dating back to 1962, only one of those occurred in the sixteen years prior to the crime at issue and none within the eight years prior to the crime at issue. Furthermore, the defendant's driving record contained convictions older than sixteen years of reckless driving, driving while license suspended, hit and run with property damage, unsafe moving violations, speeding, driving too fast for conditions, and driving on the wrong side of the road. Id. at 73, 560 S.E.2d at 206.