holding no abuse of discretion where trial court found that it had “no alternative but to dismiss” juror after guilt phase upon learning that juror would not impose the death sentence under any circumstances
How later courts described this case
- holding no abuse of discretion where trial court found that it had “no alternative but to dismiss” juror after guilt phase upon learning that juror would not impose the death sentence under any circumstances
- “The notice provided by this statute is sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirements of due process.”
- prosecutor’s statement, “How many more women are we going to have to see this man rape before we say enough is enough?” was not held to be so “grossly improper” as to require the trial court to intervene ex mero motu
- “Prior consistent statements made by a witness are admissible for purposes of corroborating the testimony of that witness, if it does in fact corroborate his testimony.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Declined to follow by State v. Robinson, 330 N.C. 1 (1991)
We decline to extend Holden to allow the testimony at issue in this case.
The opinion
Justice Frye
dissenting as to sentence.
I believe that defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. The majority holds that proof of a no contest plea and final *170 judgment entered thereon constitutes a conviction within the meaning of the capital punishment statute. I do not agree.
Our capital punishment statute, N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000, carefully limits the aggravating circumstances that may be considered by the jury in recommending a sentence of death. As the majority recognizes, a plea of no contest does not establish the fact of guilt for any other purpose than in the case in which the plea is entered. State Bar v. Hall, 293 N.C. 539 , 238 S.E. 2d 521 (1977). Therefore, when the General Assembly intends that a no contest plea be treated as a conviction, it says so clearly. An example is found under the Fair Sentencing Act, which provides: “[a] person has received a prior conviction when he . . . has entered a plea of guilty or no contest to a criminal charge.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.2 (4) (1983). However there is no similar provision in the capital punishment statute. Under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, a plea of no contest is not the same as a plea of guilty. N.C.G.S. § 8C, Rule 410 (1986). We have held that a disciplinary action may not be taken against an attorney based on his plea of no contest to a criminal offense. See State Bar v. Hall, 293 N.C. 539 , 238 S.E. 2d 521 . Perhaps the plea of no contest should be abolished. However, as it remains a plea that is viable, its viability should apply to the capital punishment statute unless changed by the General Assembly. In the absence of clear legislative direction, I do not believe that we should allow a plea of no contest to be the deciding factor as to whether a person receives life imprisonment or death. Accordingly, I dissent from so much of the majority opinion as upholds the death penalty in this case.