explaining that prior decision allows use of felony aggravator only when defendant is convicted for first-degree murder upon theory of premeditation and deliberation and holding that felony aggravator was properly submitted to jury when defendant found guilty upon theory of premeditation and deliberation “as well as by virtue of the felony murder rule”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that prior decision allows use of felony aggravator only when defendant is convicted for first-degree murder upon theory of premeditation and deliberation and holding that felony aggravator was properly submitted to jury when defendant found guilty upon theory of premeditation and deliberation “as well as by virtue of the felony murder rule”
- finding error where same evidence supported two circumstances submitted, that the murder was committed to (i) avoid or prevent arrest, N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000(e)(4), and (ii) disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforce ment of laws, N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000(e)(7)
- court holds that trial court erred in submitting to jury both the aggravator that the capital felony was committed to “disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws,” and the aggravator that it was committed “for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest”
- defendant’s stipulation to armed robbery conviction sufficient because “armed robbery, by definition, involves the use or threat of violence to the person of the victim”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice HUSKINS concurring.
I support the majority opinion in Goodman, Cherry and Johnson. At the same time, I join in the concurring opinion of Justice Carlton which correctly, I think, analyzes the results reached in these three cases.