In State v. Lamb, 321 N.C. 633, 643-44, 365 S.E.2d 600, 605-06 (1988), the defendant made a request for a special instruction on prior inconsistent statements. Instead of directing the jury to consider a witness's prior inconsistent statements in assessing the credibility of a witness, the judge directed the jury to consider prior consistent statements in assessing the credibility of a witness. Despite the error in the special instruction, the Supreme Court of North Carolina concluded that it was "doubtless that the jury understood their duty as fact-finders to consider consistencies and inconsistencies of prior statements in deciding the veracity of a particular witness." Id. at 644, 365 S.E.2d at 606.