# State v. Brown

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · July 13, 1982 · 306 N.C. 151

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9587970

## Case

- **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. David J. Brown
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** July 13, 1982
- **Citations:** 306 N.C. 151; 293 S.E.2d 569; 1982 N.C. LEXIS 1447
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Exum
- **Judges:** Carlton, Exum
- **Cited by:** 148 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9587970

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding in a case in which police had control of the crime scene, which was an apartment, that it was a denial of fundamental fairness and due process for the defendant to be denied the limited inspection of the crime scene that he had requested, particularly given that the…
- concluding that it was a denial of fundamental fairness and due process for the defendant to be denied the limited inspection of the premises of the crime scene that he had requested, particularly when the state had been given access to the scene and had relied heavily on info…
- noting that "G.S. 15A-925 does not authorize a trial court to order the State to disclose its aggravating circumstances prior to trial" because "aggravating circumstances are not `factual information' within the meaning of G.S. 15A-925"
- holding that when the defendant is convicted of felony murder, the underlying felony merges with the murder and cannot be used as an aggravating circumstance
- holding no error in the trial court's failure to submit the charge in writing, at the request of the defendant

## Opinion text

Justice EXUM
dissenting as to sentence.
For the reasons stated in Part I of my dissenting opinion in State v. Pinch, 306 N.C. at 38, 292 S.E. 2d at 230 (1982), I believe it was prejudicial error for the trial judge to instruct the jury that it had a duty to recommend the death sentence if it answered certain issues favorably to the state.
Therefore I vote to vacate the death sentence and to remand for a new sentencing hearing. I concur with the result reached by the majority in the guilt phase of the case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9587970. Public record. Not legal advice.