equating capital sentencing to a trial proceeding by noting that, “[a]s a general matter, the truthfulness of any aspect of any witness’s testimony may be attacked on cross-examination” and explaining that “[t]his basic rule applies to all trial proceedings, including both the guilt and sentencing phases in capital cases”
How later courts described this case
- equating capital sentencing to a trial proceeding by noting that, “[a]s a general matter, the truthfulness of any aspect of any witness’s testimony may be attacked on cross-examination” and explaining that “[t]his basic rule applies to all trial proceedings, including both the guilt and sentencing phases in capital cases”
- rejecting Pinch's arguments that the Supreme Court of North Carolina should adopt additional procedures to assist proportionality review; Pinch's argument was based in part on the claim, raised in his Appellant's Brief at page 100, that without such procedures he would be denied effective assistance of counsel
- instructing practitioners “to seek excellence first, not excessiveness, in the preparation of briefs and remind them that the ability to be direct and concise is a formidable weapon in the arsenal of appellate advocacy”
- statutory mitigating circumstance presumed to be one which the jury reasonably could deem to have mitigating value
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by State v. Benson, 323 N.C. 318 (1988)
306 N.C. 1, 12, 292 S.E.2d 203, 214 (1982) (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Benson, 323 N.C. 318, 372 S.E.2d 517 (1988).
Abrogated in part, on other grounds by State v. Wilson, 322 N.C. 117 (1988)
306 N.C. 1, 22, 292 S.E.2d 203, 221 (1982) (equating capital sentencing to a trial proceeding by noting that, “[a]s a general matter, the truthfulness of any aspect of any witness’s testimony may be attacked on cross-examination” and explaining that “[t]his basic rule applies to all trial proceedings, including both the guilt and sentencing phases in capital cases”), abrogated in part on other grounds by State v. Wil…
The opinion
*62 Justice Carlton
concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion. However, I wish to add that I agree with the views expressed by Justice Exum in section IV. of his dissenting opinion. In my opinion, the comparison pool for proportionality review for first degree murder cases should include all cases tried under the present death penalty statute which have been affirmed on appeal by this Court, regardless of the punishment imposed. I think it is time for this Court to address this issue.
Chief Justice BRANCH joins in this concurring opinion.