concurring.
I concur in the opinion of the majority and the result reached, except as herein set forth. I dissent from the holding of the majority which applies the “plain error” rule established in State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 300 S.E. 2d 375 (1983), to the admission of evidence. Evidentiary matters are entirely different from *745instructions by the court on matters of law. The plain error rule is appropriate for application to jury instructions by the court. It should not be applied to evidentiary matters.
Rule 10 was adopted to limit the scope of appellate review to those questions properly presented. The commentary to the rule points to the necessity of a “sifting process” to determine the issues for resolution upon appellate review. I am fearful that applying the “plain error” rule to evidentiary matters constitutes the first step in abrogating the necessity for objections at trial as the basis for building assignments of error. An open invitation is extended to the bar to raise issues on appeal which were not properly raised or preserved at the trial level. Our law has consistently been to the contrary. State v. Foddrell, 291 N.C. 546, 231 S.E. 2d 618 (1977). The admission of incompetent evidence is not ground for a new trial where there was no objection at the time the evidence was offered. This is true even though it involves rights under the state and federal constitutions. Id.; State v. Lowery, 286 N.C. 698, 213 S.E. 2d 255 (1975), death sentence vacated, 428 U.S. 902, 49 L.Ed. 2d 1206 (1976). This Court held in State v. Ballard, 79 N.C. 627, 629 (1878), that a defendant in a criminal case cannot
be silent and acquiesce in the introduction of any evidence which on objection made in apt time would have been ruled out, and permit it to be heard and acted on by the jury and then complain of its admission. In such case he must abide the result, and can not complain after conviction.
Although this has long been the rule, this Court has never been derelict in its duty to see justice done, and where there is unobjected error of such fundamental nature that a defendant has been deprived of a fair trial, the Court will on its own motion review such error. State v. Cochran, 230 N.C. 523, 53 S.E. 2d 663 (1949). It will continue to do so.