{ "id": 2555516, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HARVEY LEE GREEN, JR.", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Green", "decision_date": "1991-08-14", "docket_number": "No. 385A84", "first_page": "686", "last_page": "689", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "329 N.C. 686" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "494 U.S. 433", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 4898 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/494/0433-01" ] }, { "cite": "476 U.S. 79", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12787 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/476/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 ALR3d 227", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "481 U.S. 279", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6214785 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/481/0279-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Stan. L. Rev. 27", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Stan. L. Rev.", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "64 L.Ed.2d 795", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "446 U.S. 941", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6277664, 6275708, 6276260, 6274984, 6278967, 6278350, 6275343, 6278644, 6279286, 6277367, 6276539, 6275996, 6278014 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/446/0941-08", "/us/446/0941-03", "/us/446/0941-05", "/us/446/0941-01", "/us/446/0941-12", "/us/446/0941-10", "/us/446/0941-02", "/us/446/0941-11", "/us/446/0941-13", "/us/446/0941-07", "/us/446/0941-06", "/us/446/0941-04", "/us/446/0941-09" ] }, { "cite": "259 S.E.2d 843", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572489 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "357 S.E.2d 622", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 297", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4727682 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0297-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 388, "char_count": 6768, "ocr_confidence": 0.717, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.503686320449162e-08, "percentile": 0.34421022229481335 }, "sha256": "bc47146596e00b76bb5cdea623b80d07aebdec1f4ecb9a69e6f53738573ed482", "simhash": "1:f3fc39513fc8c5af", "word_count": 1125 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:30:52.475304+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justice Mitchell concurs in the result." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HARVEY LEE GREEN, JR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WEBB, Justice.\nThe defendant has made 23 assignments of error. The subjects most of these assignments of error cover should not recur at a new sentencing hearing and we shall not discuss them. We shall discuss two separate assignments of error under each of which the defendant contends the bills of indictment against him should be quashed on constitutional grounds.\nThe defendant first says that there was racial discrimination in the selection of the foreman of the grand jury which returned the bills against him. He contends this violates the rule of State v. Cofield, 320 N.C. 297, 357 S.E.2d 622 (1987), and the Constitution of North Carolina. With certain exceptions not applicable to this case a defendant who pleads guilty waives his right to challenge the plea on constitutional grounds. State v. Reynolds, 298 N.C. 380, 259 S.E.2d 843 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941, 64 L.Ed.2d 795 (1980). The defendant, by pleading guilty, waived any right he had under Cofield. This assignment of error is overruled.\nThe defendant also contends that the manner in which our death penalty statute, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000 (1988), is enforced violates the equal protection clauses of U.S. Const, amend. XIV and N.C. Const, art. .1, \u00a7 19. He also contends it violates the U.S. Const, amend. VIII, which amendment proscribes cruel and unusual punishment. The defendant bases this argument on two statistical studies of the imposition of the death penalty. One of these studies was conducted by Professors Samuel Gross and Robert Mauro and is published as Gross and Mauro, Patterns of Death: An Analysis of Racial Disparities in Capital Sentencing and Homicide Victimization, 37 Stan. L. Rev. 27 (1984). The other study was made by Professors Barry Nakell and K. Hardy, The Arbitrariness of the Death Penalty (1987). The studies show that a person is more likely to be executed if the murder victim is white and the chance is more likely yet if the defendant is black.\nAlthough the defendant has pled guilty he still faces a trial in which he may receive the death penalty. We shall consider this assignment of error which is directed at the way the death penalty is imposed.\nThe United States Supreme Court held in McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987), that general statistical studies of the operation of the death penalty in a given jurisdiction cannot alone establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination of the death penalty in a particular case tried in that jurisdiction under U.S. Const, amend. VIII or U.S. Const, amend. XIV. The studies which the defendant offered in this case are no more particularized than those offered in McCleskey. We are bound by McCleskey to hold the defendant cannot show a violation of his rights under the eighth and fourteenth amendments by these statistical studies.\nThe defendant argues that nevertheless he has made a prima facie showing that his rights under N.C. Const, art. I, \u00a7 19 were violated. Because the statistical studies offered by the defendant do not relate specifically to North Carolina or to the district in which the defendant was tried, we hold that the defendant has failed to make a prima facie showing that the defendant\u2019s rights were violated under the North Carolina Constitution. This assignment of error is overruled.\nWe agree with the State and the defendant that there was prejudicial error pursuant to McKoy. For this reason the defendant must have a new sentencing hearing and we so order.\nNew sentencing hearing.\nJustice Mitchell concurs in the result.", "type": "majority", "author": "WEBB, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by James J. Coman, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Joan H. Byers, Special Deputy Attorney General, William N. Farrell, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, and Barry S. McNeill, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by David W. Dorey, Assistant Appellate Defender, and Louis D. Bilionis, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant appellant.", "E. Ann Christian and Robert E. Zaytoun for North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.", "John A. Dusenbury, Jr., for North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers, amicus curiae." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HARVEY LEE GREEN, JR.\nNo. 385A84\n(Filed 14 August 1991)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 131 (NCI4th) \u2014 guilty plea \u2014 waiver of right to challenge indictment on constitutional grounds\nBy pleading guilty to two charges of first degree murder, defendant waived his right to challenge the bills of indictment on the ground that there was racial discrimination in the selection of the foreman of the grand jury which returned the bills of indictment against him.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7 490.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 376 (NCI4th) \u2014 death penalty \u2014racial discrimination \u2014 statistical studies\nDefendant could not establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the application of the death penalty under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution by statistical studies on the imposition of the death penalty. Nor did defendant make a prima facie showing that the manner in which our death penalty statute is enforced violates Art. I, \u00a7 19 of the N. C. Constitution where the statistical studies offered by defendant do not relate specifically to North Carolina or to the district in which defendant was tried.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7 594.\nRacial discrimination in punishment for crime. 40 ALR3d 227.\nAppeal by the defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a) from judgments imposing two sentences of death imposed by Watts, J., at the 11 June 1984 Session of Superior Court, PITT County. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 February 1988; additional arguments heard 22 August 1988.\nThe defendant pled guilty to two counts of first degree murder and two counts of common law robbery. He was tried by a jury as to punishment and the jury recommended that he be sentenced to death on both the murder charges. Two death sentences were imposed and the defendant appealed. We remanded the case for a hearing as to whether the defendant\u2019s rights had been violated because of racial discrimination in selecting the jury contrary to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). A hearing was held in Superior Court, Pitt County, at which it was found that there was no racial discrimination in the selection of the jury. The case was then returned to this Court. We remanded the case for a second time for a further hearing on the Batson issue. The superior court made further and more detailed findings of fact and again found no Batson error. The case was again returned to this Court. The State then filed a motion in which it conceded there was prejudicial error under McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 108 L.Ed.2d 369 (1990), and moved for a new sentencing hearing.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by James J. Coman, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Joan H. Byers, Special Deputy Attorney General, William N. Farrell, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, and Barry S. McNeill, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nMalcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by David W. Dorey, Assistant Appellate Defender, and Louis D. Bilionis, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant appellant.\nE. Ann Christian and Robert E. Zaytoun for North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.\nJohn A. Dusenbury, Jr., for North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers, amicus curiae." }, "file_name": "0686-01", "first_page_order": 724, "last_page_order": 727 }