# State v. Cofield

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · July 7, 1987 · 320 N.C. 297

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599936

## Case

- **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. Ernest Richard Cofield
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** July 7, 1987
- **Citations:** 320 N.C. 297; 357 S.E.2d 622; 1987 N.C. LEXIS 2152
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Webb
- **Judges:** Exum, Meyer, Mitchell, Webb, Whichard
- **Cited by:** 33 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/9599936

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that racial discrimination in selection of a grand jury foreperson violates the United States and North Carolina Constitutions, and stating that "Article I, section 26 (of the North Carolina Constitution) does more than protect individuals from unequal treatment"

## Opinion text

Justice Webb
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority has held that if the defendant can prove that there was discrimination in the selection of the foreman of the grand jury which indicted him there must be a new trial, even though the method of selecting the foreman had no impact on the outcome of the grand jury proceedings. I disagree with this conclusion. I agree that the “constitutional guarantee against racial discrimination in jury service is intended to protect values other than the reliability of the outcome of the proceedings.” I believe these values can easily be protected without awarding a new trial in this case.
There is nothing that makes me believe that the superior court judges of this state, who select grand jury foremen, desire in any way to deprive any group of its constitutional rights. If a minority has not been properly considered for service as grand jury foremen in the past this defect may be cured by calling it to the attention of the superior court judges. They will insure that the problem is solved. If they do not we can take whatever action is necessary to do so. There is no need for the drastic remedy mandated in this case.
I can understand that the “racially motivated exclusion of blacks from a grand jury will, by itself, vitiate any indictment returned by that grand jury against a black defendant.” In such a case we can assume that the grand jury could be disposed to give a different brand of justice to blacks. That is not so in this case. We cannot assume that if a grand jury is selected in a racially neutral manner it will discriminate against blacks if its foreman is not so selected.
I vote to affirm the Court of Appeals.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599936. Public record. Not legal advice.