STROUD, Judge.

Ralph Lewis Gettys ("defendant") appeals from judgments entered after a jury found him guilty of second-degree murder, possession of a firearm by a felon, and simple assault. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion to strike the jury venire; (2) admitting a recording of a police interview and allowing a police detective to read from a transcript of that recording; and (3) denying defendant's request for a special jury instruction on sequestration. We find no error.

I. Background

In the early hours of 15 December 2012, defendant worked as a bouncer at a "liquor house" in Charlotte. Defendant patted down customers for firearms, among whom were Joshua Lampkins and Raymona Abraham. Around 5:00 a.m. or 6:00 a.m., defendant told his brother that he wanted to leave the liquor house. Defendant's brother gave him the keys to his car, which he had parked down the street, so that defendant could move the car in front of the liquor house and then they could leave together. Defendant's ex-girlfriend, Teshalla Dunlap, accompanied defendant as he walked down the street to the car. With Dunlap as a passenger, defendant drove the car back up the street and parked it in front of the liquor house. When defendant and Dunlap got out of the car, Lampkins and Abraham confronted them and claimed that defendant had hit Lampkins with the car. Lampkins and Abraham demanded that defendant pay them fifty dollars, and when defendant refused, they threatened to attack him. When the conflict escalated, Dunlap walked toward the liquor house to tell defendant's brother to come outside. During the confrontation, defendant shot and killed Abraham and beat Lampkins unconscious. As part of the investigation of the homicide, Detectives Carter and Greenly interviewed Dunlap and recorded the interview.

On or about 7 January 2013, a grand jury indicted defendant for murder, possession of a firearm by a felon, and simple assault. See N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 14-17, -33(a), -415.1 (2011). At trial, defendant moved to strike the petit jury venire, but the trial court denied his motion. On 16 January 2014, the jury found defendant guilty of second-degree murder, possession of a firearm by a felon, and simple assault. The trial court sentenced defendant to 339 to 419 months' imprisonment for the second-degree murder offense, 21 to 35 months' imprisonment for the possession of a firearm by a felon offense, and 60 days of imprisonment for the simple assault offense. The trial court ordered that defendant serve the second-degree murder sentence and possession of a firearm by a felon sentence consecutively and serve the simple assault sentence concurrently. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court.

II. Motion to Strike the Jury Venire

Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike the jury venire. Defendant alleges that his venire was racially disproportionate to the demographics of Mecklenburg County and therefore deprived him of his constitutional right to a jury of his peers.

A. Standard of Review

We review alleged violations of constitutional rights de novo. State v. Graham, 200 N.C. App. 204, 214, 683 S.E.2d 437, 444 (2009), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 363 N.C. 857, 694 S.E.2d 766 (2010).

B. Analysis

State v. Jackson, 215 N.C. App. 339, 341-42, 716 S.E.2d 61, 64 (2011) (emphasis added and citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted) (quoting Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 S.Ct. 664, 668-69, 58 L.Ed.2d 579, 587 (1979)).

A single venire that fails to proportionately represent a cross-section of the community does not constitute systematic exclusion. See State v. Williams, 355 N.C. 501, 549-50, 565 S.E.2d 609, 638 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1125, 123 S.Ct. 894, 154 L.Ed.2d 808 (2003). "The fact that a particular jury or a series of juries does not statistically reflect the racial composition of the community does not in itself make out an invidious discrimination forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause." Jackson, 215 N.C.App. at 343, 716 S.E.2d at 65 (brackets omitted). Systematic exclusion occurs when a procedure in the venire selection process consistently yields non-representative venires. See Duren, 439 U.S. at 366-67, 99 S.Ct. at 669-70, 58 L.Ed.2d at 588-89 (holding that a venire selection process favoring female exemption from jury duty constituted systematic exclusion).

Defendant argues that Mecklenburg County's computer program, Jury Manager, generated a racially disproportionate venire and thus deprived him of a jury of his peers. Defendant relies on Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346, 359, 90 S.Ct. 532, 539-40, 24 L.Ed.2d 567, 578 (1970). But in interpreting Turner, our Supreme Court noted:

State v. Bowman, 349 N.C. 459, 469, 509 S.E.2d 428, 434 (1998) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1040, 119 S.Ct. 2403, 144 L.Ed.2d 802 (1999). Although defendant asserts that there is a disparity under the second prong of Duren, he concedes the absence of systematic exclusion under the third prong. Because defendant has failed to satisfy the third Duren prong, systematic exclusion, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to strike the jury venire. Id., 509 S.E.2d at 434-35; see also Williams, 355 N.C. at 549-50, 565 S.E.2d at 638; State v. Avery, 299 N.C. 126, 134-35, 261 S.E.2d 803, 808-09 (1980).

III. Admission of Evidence

Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the recording of Dunlap's police interview for both corroboration and impeachment. Defendant further contends that the trial court erred in allowing Detective Carter to read portions of the transcript of that recording. We find no error in either circumstance.

A. Standard of Review

State v. Tellez, 200 N.C. App. 517, 526, 684 S.E.2d 733, 739 (2009) (citations and quotation marks omitted). We also review for an abuse of discretion a trial court's decision to admit a statement for impeachment. State v. Banks, 210 N.C. App. 30, 38, 706 S.E.2d 807, 814 (2011).

Relying on Sherrod v. Nash General Hospital, Inc., defendant argues that the proper standard for reviewing a trial court's decision to admit a statement for corroboration is de novo. See 126 N.C. App. 755, 762, 487 S.E.2d 151, 155 (1997), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 N.C. 526, 500 S.E.2d 708 (1998). But there, this Court did not discuss a trial court's ruling on whether evidence was admissible for corroboration; rather it discussed a trial court's ruling on whether evidence was relevant under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401. Id., 487 S.E.2d at 155. Accordingly, we hold that Sherrod is inapposite.

B. Corroboration and Impeachment

State v. Duffie, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 772 S.E.2d 100, 104 (2015) (citations and quotation marks omitted). "Prior statements of a witness which are inconsistent with his present testimony are not admissible as substantive evidence because of their hearsay nature. Even so, such prior inconsistent statements are admissible for the purpose of impeachment." State v. Bishop, 346 N.C. 365, 387, 488 S.E.2d 769, 780 (1997); see also N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 607 (2013). "[I]mpeachment evidence has been defined as evidence used to undermine a witness's credibility, with any circumstance tending to show a defect in the witness's perception, memory, narration or veracity relevant to this purpose." State v. Allen, 222 N.C. App. 707, 721, 731 S.E.2d 510, 520 (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 366 N.C. 415, 737 S.E.2d 377 (2012), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2009, 185 L.Ed.2d 876 (2013).

A trial court may admit evidence for both corroboration and impeachment. See State v. Ayudkya, 96 N.C. App. 606, 610, 386 S.E.2d 604, 606-07 (1989) (holding that a pretrial statement that supported a witness's direct testimony but contradicted his cross-examination testimony was admissible to either corroborate or impeach, "whichever the jury found"). "Where a witness's prior statement contains facts that manifestly contradict his trial testimony, however, such evidence may not be admitted under the guise of corroborating his testimony." State v. Alexander, 152 N.C. App. 701, 704, 568 S.E.2d 317, 319 (2002) (quotation marks omitted). Additionally, this Court in Ayudkya cautioned that courts must apply carefully this combination of the evidentiary rules of corroboration and impeachment; otherwise, a party could introduce "almost any out-of-court statement made by a witness." Ayudkya, 96 N.C.App. at 610, 386 S.E.2d at 606-07.

Here, the trial court admitted the recording of Dunlap's police interview for both corroboration and impeachment. Before admitting the recording, the trial court carefully reviewed the transcript of the recording and addressed defendant's concern that the State had called Dunlap as a witness only to introduce her prior inconsistent statements, which would have been otherwise inadmissible as hearsay:

The trial court also gave a limiting instruction to the jury before the recording was played to them:

The trial court later included a similar limiting instruction in the jury charge:

In light of the trial court's abundance of caution as demonstrated in its conscientious review of the transcript of the recording and its limiting instructions, we hold that under Ayudkya, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the recording for both corroboration and impeachment. See Ayudkya, 96 N.C.App. at 610, 386 S.E.2d at 606-07; Tellez, 200 N.C.App. at 527-28, 684 S.E.2d at 740-41 (approving of a similar limiting instruction).

Defendant contends that admitting the recording for both corroboration and impeachment is "logically contradictory and counterintuitive." But the State did not introduce a single pretrial statement for both corroboration and impeachment; rather, it introduced a recording of Dunlap's police interview, which included many pretrial statements, some of which tended to corroborate Dunlap's testimony and some of which tended to impeach her testimony.

Defendant relies on State v. Frogge for the proposition that prior contradictory statements do not corroborate a witness's testimony and may not be admitted under such a theory. See 345 N.C. 614, 618, 481 S.E.2d 278, 280 (1997). But Frogge is distinguishable, because here, the State proffered and the trial court admitted Dunlap's pretrial statements for both corroboration and impeachment purposes.

Defendant next attempts to distinguish Ayudkya. There, the pretrial statement corroborated the witness's direct testimony "although it tended to impeach his cross-examination testimony." Ayudkya, 96 N.C.App. at 610, 386 S.E.2d at 606. Defendant argues that Ayudkya is distinguishable, because "the State was not offering Ms. Dunlap's previous statement[s] ... in an attempt to rehabilitate her by corroborating her direct testimony and impeaching her cross-examination testimony." But nothing in Ayudkya suggests that its holding is limited to this particular situation. See id., 386 S.E.2d at 606-07. Following Ayudkya, we hold that the trial court did not err in admitting the recording of the police interview for both corroboration and impeachment purposes. See id., 386 S.E.2d at 606-07.

C. Reading from Transcript

Defendant also contends that the trial court's decision to allow Detective Carter to read aloud portions of the transcript that the State believed were not clearly audible from the recording intruded upon the province of the jury. But because Detective Carter was one of the detectives who interviewed Dunlap, she had personal knowledge of the interview. An individual who has personal knowledge of a matter may testify directly about that matter at trial. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 602 (2013); State v. Cole, 147 N.C. App. 637, 645, 556 S.E.2d 666, 671 (2001), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 169, 568 S.E.2d 619 (2002). Here, Detective Carter merely read or clarified statements that had been made in her presence. Additionally, the trial court gave the following limiting instruction to the jury:

Because Detective Carter had personal knowledge of Dunlap's interview, we hold that the trial court did not err by allowing her to read from the transcript and clarify portions of the recording to the jury. See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 602; Cole, 147 N.C.App. at 645, 556 S.E.2d at 671.

IV. Jury Instruction Request

Defendant finally contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for a special jury instruction on sequestration. N.C. Gen. Stat § 1-181 provides:

N.C. Gen. Stat § 1-181 (2013) (emphasis added).

In closing argument, the prosecutor argued:

In response, defendant made two requests for a special jury instruction on sequestration. Defendant first orally requested an instruction before the trial court read the jury charge, and the trial court responded that it would examine the requested instruction when defendant submitted it in writing. This initial request was not written and thus did not satisfy subsection (a)(1). See id. §§ 1-181(a)(1), 15A-1231(a) (2013); State v. McNeill, 346 N.C. 233, 240, 485 S.E.2d 284, 288 (1997) ("[A] trial court's ruling denying requested instructions is not error where the defendant fails to submit his request for instructions in writing."), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1053, 118 S.Ct. 704, 139 L.Ed.2d 647 (1998).

Defendant later renewed his request in writing after the jury had been charged and had left the courtroom to begin its deliberations. The request was for the following instruction:

This written request satisfied N.C. Gen. Stat § 1-181(a)(1), but we analyze the trial court's decision under subsection (b), because defendant made the written request after the jury was charged; accordingly, we review for an abuse of discretion. See N.C. Gen. Stat § 1-181(b). "A trial court may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon a showing that its ruling was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." Tellez, 200 N.C.App. at 526, 684 S.E.2d at 739.

In denying defendant's written request, the trial court properly exercised its discretion:

Given that the requested instruction did not relate to a dispositive issue in the case, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request.1

V. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the trial court committed no error.

NO ERROR.

Judges CALABRIA and TYSON concur.