noting that, “[although the transcript in the case sub judice cannot be described as a model of reporting service, it is not so inaccurate as to prevent this Court from reviewing it for errors in defendant’s trial”
How later courts described this case
- noting that, “[although the transcript in the case sub judice cannot be described as a model of reporting service, it is not so inaccurate as to prevent this Court from reviewing it for errors in defendant’s trial”
- dismissing defendant’s argument that the condition of the transcript of his capital trial and the length of time it took the court reporter to prepare the transcript precluded meaningful appellate review
- failing to find an abuse of discretion where juror excused between guilt-innocence phase and sentencing proceeding was distraught and highly emotional
- child killed within hours of her mother’s death after she awoke while defendant was disposing of her mother’s body
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice FRYE
dissenting as to sentence.
For the reasons expressed in the Chief Justice’s dissenting opinion in State v. McKoy, 323 N.C. 1 , 372 S.E. 2d 12 (1988), which I joined, I believe the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. ---, 100 L.Ed. 2d 384 (1988), requires that defendant be given a new sentencing hearing. Accordingly, I dissent from that portion of the Court’s opinion which rejects defendant’s argument based upon the holding of Mills . I concur in the remainder of the Court’s opinion.
Chief Justice EXUM joins in this dissenting opinion.