In State v. Prevatte, 346 N.C. 162, 484 S.E.2d 377 (1997), the Supreme Court of North Carolina held the trial court committed constitutional error by not allowing defense counsel to ask certain questions he proposed during the cross-examination of the State's principal witness. In Prevatte, the jury found defendant guilty, inter alia, of first-degree murder and the State's principal witness, Jeffrey Burr ("Burr"), was an eyewitness to the shooting. Id. at 162-63, 484 S.E.2d at 378. At the time of trial, Burr "was under indictment in another county on nine charges of forgery and uttering forged checks." Id. at 163, 484 S.E.2d at 378. Defense counsel wanted to "cross-examine Burr about these charges and whether Burr had been promised or expected anything in regard to the charges in exchange for his testimony in defendant's case." Id. The trial court refused to allow defense counsel to ask Burr the proposed questions on cross-examination. Id. The Court held the State possessed a "strong weapon to control the witness" and that it was "constitutional error not to allow the questions on cross-examination that the defendant proposed" to ask Burr. Id. at 164, 484 S.E.2d at 378. In granting defendant a new trial, the Prevatte Court relied on the United States Supreme Court case, Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S. Ct. 1105, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1974).