# State v. Huff

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · July 26, 1989 · 325 N.C. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588642

## Case

- **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. Everett Randolph Huff
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** July 26, 1989
- **Citations:** 325 N.C. 1; 381 S.E.2d 635; 1989 N.C. LEXIS 369
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Frye
- **Judges:** Meyer, Exum, Webb, Frye
- **Cited by:** 98 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Vacated on other grounds by Spotted War Bonnet v. United States, 497 U.S. 1021 (1990).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588642

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 Stat…
- applying harmless error review to alleged violations of defendant’s nonwaivable right to be present at all stages of his capital trial

## Opinion text

Justice Frye
dissenting as to sentence.
I concur in the result reached as to the guilt phase of the trial but find it necessary to dissent as to the result reached regarding the sentencing phase. As to the sentencing phase, defendant contended that the two requirements of unanimity and proof of miti *81 gating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence unconstitutionally limited the jury’s consideration of mitigating circumstances in Issue Three, and thus tainted the jury’s response on Issue Four. The majority rejects defendant’s argument regarding unanimity on the authority of State v. McLaughlin, 323 N.C. 68, 108 , 372 S.E. 2d 49, 74-75 (1988). For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in McLaughlin , I continue to believe that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. —, 100 L.Ed. 2d 384 . (1988), is applicable to the North Carolina death sentencing procedure. I also note that the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the case relied on by the majority of this Court in McLaughlin. State v. McKoy, 323 N.C. 1 , 372 S.E. 2d 12 (1988), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 103 L.Ed. 2d 180 (1989).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588642. Public record. Not legal advice.