holding that in a double murder where jury found seven mitigating circumstances including that defendant had no significant history of prior criminal activity and had a good character and reputation, death sentence was not disproportionate
How later courts described this case
- holding that in a double murder where jury found seven mitigating circumstances including that defendant had no significant history of prior criminal activity and had a good character and reputation, death sentence was not disproportionate
- rejecting proportionality and other arguments raised by Williams *967 not specifically addressed in the opinion, one of which, presented in Williams’ Appellant’s Brief at page 136 by incorporating Pinch’s argument by reference, was that Williams would be denied effective assistance of counsel if the Supreme Court of North Carolina failed to adopt criteria upon which proportionality review would be conducted
- rejecting proportionality and other arguments raised by Williams not specifically addressed in the opinion, one of which, presented in Williams' Appellant's Brief at page 136 by incorporating Pinch's argument by reference, was that Williams would be denied effective assistance of counsel if the Supreme Court of North Carolina failed to adopt criteria upon which proportionality review would be conducted
- finding no error where, although the trial court did not instruct on immunity or quasi-immunity, the defendant cross-examined the accomplices and argued their interest to the jury
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice EXUM
dissenting as to sentence.
For the reasons stated in Part I of my dissenting opinion in State v. Pinch, 306 N.C. 1, 38 , 292 S.E. 2d 203, 230 (1982), I believe it was prejudicial error for the trial judge to instruct the jury that it had a duty to recommend the death sentence if it answered certain issues favorably to the state.
For the reasons stated in Part II of my dissenting opinion in State v. Pinch, supra, I conclude that prospective juror Melton was improperly excused for cause in violation of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).
Therefore I vote to vacate the death sentence and to remand for a new sentencing hearing. I concur in the majority’s conclusion that no prejudicial error occurred in the guilt phase of the case.