# State v. Quesinberry

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · July 26, 1989 · 325 N.C. 125

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588673

## Case

- **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. Michael Ray Quesinberry
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** July 26, 1989
- **Citations:** 325 N.C. 125; 381 S.E.2d 681; 1989 N.C. LEXIS 373
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Exum
- **Judges:** Whichard, Exum, Frye
- **Cited by:** 26 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/9588673

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588673. Public record. Not legal advice.