In State v. James, 81 N.C. App. 91, 344 S.E.2d 77 (1986), the defendant was not in exclusive control of the premises where the controlled substances were found. However, the evidence presented showed that the defendant admitted to police officers that his clothes were on a mattress in one room of the house, where the officers also found a pay stub bearing his name. The house was rented by the defendant's sister, Mary. He admitted staying over at the house occasionally to babysit for Mary's child. The defendant had been seen there the day before, and was standing on the porch nearest the heroin when police arrived. He admitted keeping the cocaine at the house though without his sister's permission. James, 81 N.C. App. at 95, 344 S.E.2d at 80. The Court concluded these were sufficient "other incriminating circumstances" to allow the jury to consider the defendant's constructive possession of the drugs. In State v. James, 182 N.C. App. 698, 643 S.E.2d 34 (2007), the jury requested it be allowed to review two witnesses' testimony. Id. at 706, 643 S.E.2d at 39. In response to this request the trial court stated, I would instruct you, or tell you, that although the Court Reporter does make a record of the testimony in the trial, it is not done or not produced as the testimony is being given--and the term is that it is being done in real time--but rather is later prepared by the Court Reporter. The Court Reporter takes the record that he has made and reduces it to a typed report, which takes some time. So I am not going to stop your deliberations and send him to type this transcript and come back at some later time to present that to you. So, in my discretion, I am not going to supply you with transcripts of the testimony but would instruct you to use your recollection as to the testimony of those other two witnesses, and the other witnesses in the trial. Id. The defendant in James argued that this exchange shows the trial court did not understand that it had the authority to allow the jury to reexamine testimony, and that this misunderstanding prejudiced him. In support, defendant cites State v. Barrow, 350 N.C. 640, 517 S.E.2d 374 (1999), and other cases in which the trial court failed to realize that it had discretion to grant or deny a jury's request to reexamine evidence. Id. However, this Court found no error and concluded that the facts of this case are more analogous to State v. Burgin, 313 N.C. 404, 329 S.E.2d 653 (1985), where a trial court recognized the authority to order the jury to reexamine testimony read back or transcribed, but in its discretion denied the jury's request. Here, the trial court noted that it would be time consuming for the testimony to be transcribed, but never indicated it lacked authority to order the court reporter to transcribe the requested testimony. The trial court further noted that it was denying the request at its discretion, which implies that the court understood that it could have granted the request at its discretion but chose not to do so. This is the distinguishing fact between the Barrow line of cases and the Burgin line of cases, and places this case squarely with the latter. Id.