The opinion
Chief Judge HEDRICK
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority in awarding defendant Hamad a new trial based on the suggestion that the trial judge erred in not allowing Hamad’s counsel to further cross-examine the co-defendant Wells. Hamad did not offer or request to cross-examine Wells for the record in the absence of the jury. Assuming arguen-do, the trial judge erred in not allowing Hamad’s counsel to cross-examine the witness, we cannot determine whether such error was prejudicial because nothing appears in the record from which we could determine whether such error was prejudicial. Furthermore, I am persuaded that any error in not allowing Hamad’s counsel to cross-examine the co-defendant after the State had done so is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. I vote to find no error as to defendant Hamad.
With respect to defendant Wells, I dissent from the part of the majority opinion awarding Wells a new sentencing hearing. In my opinion, the trial judge merely exercised his discretion in not finding the mitigating factor of “substantial assistance” as set forth in G.S. 90-95(h)(5).