Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s failure to rule on defendant’s motion to suppress and then permitting testimony regarding evidence which was the subject of the motion. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-977, a motion to suppress is not subject to a summary denial where the defendant has alleged a legal basis for the motion and has provided a supporting affidavit. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-977(c) (1988); State v. Breeden, 306 N.C. 533, 293 S.E.2d 788 (1982). “If the motion is not determined summarily the judge must make the determination after a hearing and finding of facts.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-977(d) (1988).

In the instant case, defendant made a proper motion to suppress evidence seized by the police from a search of his apartment, including approximately $150 in cash. In considering defendant’s motion, the trial judge rendered the motion moot upon the State’s assurance that it would not introduce any evidence arising out of the search pursuant to the warrant. During the State’s case, however, testimony was elicited from Detective Best as to whether any of the money from the robbery was recovered. Over defendant’s objection, Best responded, *188“Yes, sir. There was just over $100 — $140 or $50 recovered, pursuant to that search warrant.”

We agree with defendant that the trial court erred by admitting Detective Best’s testimony concerning the money without first having conducted a hearing to determine the admissibility of such evidence. Breeden, 306 N.C. 533, 293 S.E.2d 788; N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-977(c) and (d). However, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

A violation of the defendant’s rights under the United States Constitution is presumed prejudicial unless the State proves and the appellate court finds that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(b) (1988). The State’s evidence shows that although Angelique Parker and Lennon Smith admitted having lied to the police, both Parker and Smith recanted those statements and testified before the jury that defendant had committed the robbery. Significantly, both witnesses said they had lied because they had been threatened. Furthermore, Parker and Smith had already testified prior to Detective Best’s testimony that money from the robbery was in #13 Pinehurst Apartments shortly after the robbery. Moreover, Detective Best was not the only impartial witness, as suggested by the dissent. Selina Benson, the assistant manager, described in detail how she was confronted by the robber and how she carefully observed every exposed feature of his face. Thereafter, by covering the bottom half of faces shown to her in a photographic lineup, she instantly identified defendant as the robber, stating, “Without a doubt, these are the eyes.” Therefore, in light of this and other evidence presented at trial, we find that the State has met its burden in demonstrating that the error was harmless.

Defendant next contends that the trial court erred by summarily denying his motions to compel disclosure of jury records, to appoint expert witnesses, and to quash the indictment. Defendant argues that the indictment should have been quashed because the grand jury foreman, the grand jury, and the petit jury were unlawfully selected on the basis of race. Accordingly, he moved to inspect relevant jury records, and further motioned for appointment of an expert witness to assist him in investigating and preparing statistics concerning jury selection procedures to support his motion to quash.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-955 (1988) allows the trial court, upon defendant’s motion, to dismiss an indictment when there is ground for a challenge to the grand jury array. State v. Lynch, 300 N.C. 534, 268 S.E.2d 161 (1980). This motion must be made at or before the *189arraignment or it is waived. Id.; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-952 (1988). Defendant was arraigned on 6 May 1991, and the motion to quash was not made until 1 February 1993; therefore, the motion was not timely made. We also find that defendant did not make the threshold showing of specific need required for the appointment of an expert to assist him in his investigation of racial discrimination in jury selection. State v. Moore, 321 N.C. 327, 364 S.E.2d 648 (1988); State v. Penley, 318 N.C. 30, 347 S.E.2d 783 (1986). This assignment of error is overruled.

Defendant failed to preserve any of his remaining assignments of error for appellate review. N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1) (1995). However, we have reviewed these assignments of error and find defendant has received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

No error.

dissenting.

Because I cannot say that the erroneous admission of testimony regarding the search of defendant’s apartment was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, I respectfully dissent.

Defendant was charged with one count of armed robbery with a dangerous weapon for the robbery of a Burger King restaurant in Greenville, North Carolina. Defendant made a proper motion to suppress evidence seized by the police from a search of his apartment. After the State assured the trial court that it would not introduce any evidence from the search, the court ruled that the motion to suppress was moot. During the State’s examination of Detective Best, however, he testified that money from the robbery was recovered after a search of defendant’s apartment. The majority finds, and I agree, that the admission of this testimony was constitutional error which requires a new trial unless the State shows that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Swindler, 339 N.C. 469, 450 S.E.2d 907 (1994); State v. Bozeman, 115 N.C. App. 658, 446 S.E.2d 140 (1994); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(b) (1988). Overwhelming evidence of guilt may render a constitutional error harmless. State v. Autry, 321 N.C. 392, 364 S.E.2d 341 (1988); State v. Brown, 306 N.C. 151, 293 S.E.2d 569, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1080, 74 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1982). I conclude *190that the evidence of defendant’s guilt is not overwhelming and that he should receive a new trial.

At trial, Angelique Parker, who worked for the Burger King, testified that her husband, Jeffrey DeWitt, his sister, Vicky DeWitt, and defendant discussed robbing the Burger King. Ms. Parker made two statements to the police. In her first statement, she said that defendant had robbed the Burger King. In her second statement she said that she had lied in her first statement after being threatened by Greenville Police Detective Best and that defendant was not involved in the robbery. At trial, Ms. Parker said her second statement was a lie and that she had made it because her brother-in-law, Reggie DeWitt, threatened her life and the lives of her parents.

Lennon Smith testified that he rode with defendant, Reggie DeWitt, and defendant’s girlfriend to the Burger King on the night of the robbery. Mr. Smith testified that defendant left the car and committed the robbery. Mr. Smith told the police in a written statement, however, that Reggie DeWitt had planned and executed the robbery. He testified that he was “probably threatened” when he made the statement to the police.

Selina Benson, the manager of the Burger King, testified that she recognized defendant in a photographic array as the robber by his eyes. Detective Best testified that a Burger King employee, Helen Yvette Spell, saw the robber without his mask and identified him as Reggie DeWitt from a photographic array. Detective Best stated that Ms. Spell recanted her identification and she was not available at trial.

While there is evidence that defendant was involved in the robbery of the Burger King, the evidence that he was the actual robber is weak. Ms. Parker and Mr. Smith repeatedly lied to the police and their credibility is questionable. Ms. Benson’s testimony that she recognized defendant as the robber by his eyes is probative but not overwhelming. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the error of admitting Detective Best’s testimony that he found money from the robbery in defendant’s apartment was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Constitutional error is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if “ ‘there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’ ” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705, 710, reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987, 18 L. Ed. 2d 241 (1967) (quoting Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87, 11 L. Ed. 2d 171, 173 (1963)). I vote for a new trial.