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
Justice FRYE
dissenting as to sentence.
In upholding the death sentence in this case, the majority relies on State v. McKoy, 323 N.C. 1 , 372 S.E. 2d 12 (1988), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 103 L. Ed. 2d 180 (1989), in which this Court rejected defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in in *152 structing the jurors that they must be unanimous before they could find the existence of a mitigating circumstance. A significant question involved in this case is whether the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. —, 100 L. Ed. 2d 384 (1988), applies to the North Carolina death sentencing scheme. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Chief Justice’s dissenting opinions in State v. McKoy, 323 N.C. 1 , 372 S.E. 2d 12 , and in State v. Allen, 323 N.C. 208 , 372 S.E. 2d 855 (1988), I continue to believe that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. —, 100 L. Ed. 2d 384 , is applicable to the North Carolina death sentencing procedure. I therefore dissent from that portion of the Court’s opinion which rejects defendant’s request for a new sentencing hearing.