holding that certain assignments of error were deemed waived for failure to comply with Rule 28(d), but not dismissing the appeal
How later courts described this case
- holding that certain assignments of error were deemed waived for failure to comply with Rule 28(d), but not dismissing the appeal
- holding that equivocation toward the death penalty is a valid basis for using a peremptory challenge
- refusing to address objection on a ground not specifically asserted at trial
- “[t]he victim’s fear of defendant was relevant to show the nature of the victim’s relationship with defendant and the impact of defendant’s behavior on the victim’s state of mind prior to the murder”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice WEBB
concurring in the result.
I concur in the result reached by the majority although I believe the testimony by Otis Lewis as to what Subrina Osborne told him before she died was inadmissible hearsay testimony. It is true, as the majority says, that N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(3) allows, as an exception to the hearsay rule, testimony as to what an extrajudicial declarant says in order to prove the declarant’s state of mind. The state of mind of the declarant must be relevant to some issue in the case, however, to be admissible. State v. Meekins, 326 N.C. 689 , 392 S.E.2d 346 (1990). I do not believe Subrina Osborne’s state of mind was relevant to the matters that had to be proved to convict the defendant.
The evidence against the defendant was so strong that I do not believe what I perceive to be error in the admission of testimony demonstrates there is a reasonable possibility that had the error not been made there would have been a different result. I would hold that this was harmless error. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443 (1988).