holding the trial court properly did not intervene ex mero motu to the State’s argument that the jury should send a message to the community
How later courts described this case
- holding the trial court properly did not intervene ex mero motu to the State’s argument that the jury should send a message to the community
- no allegation that jurors received information about parole from outside source; affidavits stating that jurors believed the defendant would be released in ten years not admissible under Rule 606(b)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Chief Justice EXUM
concurring.
I concur with the majority’s treatment of all issues.
If 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.