In State v. Anderson, 355 N.C. 136, 148, 558 S.E.2d 87, 95 (2002) the defendant argued that the jury pool had been tainted when a prospective juror "'broke down' and wept upon recalling her experience as a rape victim." The Supreme Court of North Carolina held: Sefendant's argument would require individual voir dire in every . . . case to avoid the potential of a prospective juror saying something unexpected. We conclude that defendant has failed to demonstrate any prejudice in the manner in which the jury was selected and how the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion. Id.