# State v. Price

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · February 7, 1990 · 326 N.C. 56

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9616460

## Case

- **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. Ricky Lee Price
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** February 7, 1990
- **Citations:** 326 N.C. 56; 388 S.E.2d 84; 1990 N.C. LEXIS 19
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Frye
- **Judges:** Frye
- **Cited by:** 54 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Vacated on other grounds by Price v. North Carolina, 498 U.S. 802 (1990).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9616460

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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))

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9616460. Public record. Not legal advice.