stating that a “good reason” to limit the scope of counsel’s closing argument is irrelevance (citing, inter alia, Watson v. White, 309 N.C. 498, 507, 308 S.E.2d 268, 274 (1983))
How later courts described this case
- stating that a “good reason” to limit the scope of counsel’s closing argument is irrelevance (citing, inter alia, Watson v. White, 309 N.C. 498, 507, 308 S.E.2d 268, 274 (1983))
- circumstantial evidence of defendant’s perpetration of “virtually identi cal” strangulation, proximate in time, showing preparation, plan, knowledge or identity
- according to Brown, a defendant's Eighth Amendment rights are jeopardized only when the jury is urged to ignore sympathy supported by facts in the record
- circumstantial evidence of defendant’s perpetration of “virtually identi *458 cal” strangulation, proximate in time, showing preparation, plan, knowledge or identity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge Frye
concurring in the result.
One of the preservation issues raised by defendant relates to the applicability of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. —, 100 L. Ed. 2d 384 (1988), to the unanimity requirement for mitigating circumstances in determining whether death is the appropriate punishment in a given case. This issue is now pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. See State v. McKoy, 323 N.C. 1 , 372 S.E.2d 12 (1988), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 103 L. Ed. 2d 180 (1989). While I believe that Mills is applicable to North Carolina, see State v. Lloyd, 321 N.C. 301 , 364 S.E.2d 316 , vacated and remanded on other grounds, — U.S. —, 102 L. Ed. 2d 18 , reinstated, 323 N.C. 622 , 374 S.E.2d 277 (1988) (Exum, C.J., and Frye, J„ dissenting), assuming error arguendo, I would find the error nonprejudicial under the peculiar circumstances of this case.