Opinion

State v. Huff

  • 325 N.C. 1
  • 381 S.E.2d 635
  • 1989 N.C. LEXIS 369
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Filed
Jul 26, 1989
Status
Published
Author
Exum
On the bench
Meyer, Exum, Webb, Frye
Cited by
98 cases
Authority
More cited than 6.5%

Vacated on other grounds by Spotted War Bonnet v. United States, 497 U.S. 1021 (1990)

establishing that the right of a capital defendant to be present at all stages of his trial is guaranteed by Article I, section 23 of the Constitution of North Carolina, but holding that the harmless error standard applicable to errors under the Constitution of the United States must, nevertheless, be applied to violations of the right

How later courts described this case

  • establishing that the right of a capital defendant to be present at all stages of his trial is guaranteed by Article I, section 23 of the Constitution of North Carolina, but holding that the harmless error standard applicable to errors under the Constitution of the United States must, nevertheless, be applied to violations of the right
  • "If consolidation hinders or deprives the accused of his ability to present his defense, the charges should not be consolidated." (citations omitted)
  • applying harmless error review to alleged violations of defendant’s nonwaivable right to be present at all stages of his capital trial
  • “before the jury ‘finds’ a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance, it must make two preliminary determinations: (1) That the evidence supports the existence of the circum stance and (2) that the circumstance has mitigating value.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

*80 Chief Justice EXUM

concurring.

I concur with the majority’s treatment of all issues in the guilt and sentencing phases of this trial.

If in the sentencing phase the Court were addressing for the first time the mitigating circumstance unanimity instruction issue, I would agree with defendant’s position that these instructions violate the Eighth Amendment to the federal constitution as that amendment was interpreted in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. —, 100 L.Ed. 2d 384 (1988), for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinions in State v. McKoy, 323 N.C. 1 , 372 S.E. 2d 12 (1988), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 103 L.Ed. 2d 180 (1989), and State v. Allen, 323 N.C. 208 , 372 S.E. 2d 855 (1988). The majority’s position on this issue is, as a result of the Court’s decisions in McKoy and Allen , the law of this state to which I am now bound. For this reason I concur with the majority’s treatment of this issue.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.