finding no abuse of discretion where prospective juror’s answers “reveal that he wanted to follow the law, but thought his views on capital punishment would interfere with the performance of his duties during the sentencing phase”
How later courts described this case
- finding no abuse of discretion where prospective juror’s answers “reveal that he wanted to follow the law, but thought his views on capital punishment would interfere with the performance of his duties during the sentencing phase”
- stating that a homicide victim is still a “person” if the death and the taking form a continuous chain of events within the meaning of common-law robbery
- analyzing under Batson’s test when the defendant argued the prosecution used its peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Sections 19 and 26 of our Constitution
- age of juror and his children, as compared to defendant’s age, proper evidence for rebuttal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice MARTIN
dissenting in part.
I remain convinced that the dissent in State v. Quesinberry, 319 N.C. 228, 241 , 354 S.E. 2d 446, 454 (1987) with respect to the *634 sentencing issue is a correct statement of the law and therefore dissent from that part of the majority opinion awarding defendant a new sentencing hearing. I concur in the remainder of the opinion.
Justices MEYER and MITCHELL join in this dissenting opinion.