{ "id": 793083, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERNEST PAUL McCARVER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. McCarver", "decision_date": "1995-09-08", "docket_number": "No. 384A92", "first_page": "364", "last_page": "416", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "341 N.C. 364" } ], "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": "64 ALR4th 755", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "23 ALR4th 799", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "96 ALR2d 1224", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "1 ALR3d 1461", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "96 ALR2d 1435", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "86 ALR2d 656", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "33 ALR4th 301", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "40 L. Ed. 2d 886", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "114 L. Ed. 2d 763", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "99 ALR2d 7", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "484 U.S. 918", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 601570, 600420, 599435, 600587, 600654, 600347 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/484/0918-03", "/us/484/0918-05", "/us/484/0918-06", "/us/484/0918-02", "/us/484/0918-04", "/us/484/0918-01" ] }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2569839 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "213" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "431 S.E.2d 188", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "193" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2529763 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "62" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0054-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 L. Ed. 2d 235", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "488 U.S. 900", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1494036 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/488/0900-01" ] }, { "cite": "365 S.E.2d 587", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 594", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2567442 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0594-01" ] }, { "cite": "304 S.E.2d 184", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "196", "parenthetical": "defendant engaged in five incidents of theft and possessed, used, and sold marijuana" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4705739 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "653-54", "parenthetical": "defendant engaged in five incidents of theft and possessed, used, and sold marijuana" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0634-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 L. Ed. 2d 650", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "130 L. Ed. 2d 676", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "130 L. Ed. 2d 423", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "443 S.E.2d 48", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "56-57", "parenthetical": "defendant used illegal drugs, broke into a convenience store six or seven times, and broke into a pawn shop and stole guns" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "336 N.C. 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2535184 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "247", "parenthetical": "defendant used illegal drugs, broke into a convenience store six or seven times, and broke into a pawn shop and stole guns" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/336/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "367 S.E.2d 589", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "604", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "322 N.C. 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2519607 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "143", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/322/0117-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 L. Ed. 2d 895", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "446 S.E.2d 252", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "276" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2549971 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "44" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/337/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 S.E.2d 563", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "improper instruction on self-defense which was advantageous to defendant held harmless beyond reasonable doubt" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 152", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561161 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "improper instruction on self-defense which was advantageous to defendant held harmless beyond reasonable doubt" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0152-01" ] }, { "cite": "358 S.E.2d 329", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "339" }, { "page": "422" }, { "page": "339" }, { "page": "339", "parenthetical": "emphasis omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4729461 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "422" }, { "page": "422" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 L. Ed. 2d 226", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 S.E.2d 279", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 473513 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "308-09" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga-app/182/0279-01" ] }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4748970 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "515" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/319/0465-01" ] }, { "cite": "443 S.E.2d 306", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "326", "parenthetical": "defendant used and dealt drugs, had pled guilty to a robbery, carried a pistol, and used another man's driver's license as identification" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "336 N.C. 78", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2535633 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "119", "parenthetical": "defendant used and dealt drugs, had pled guilty to a robbery, carried a pistol, and used another man's driver's license as identification" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/336/0078-01" ] }, { "cite": "372 S.E.2d 517", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "323 N.C. 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2566216 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/323/0318-01" ] }, { "cite": "292 S.E.2d 203", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "227" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567373 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "33" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 L. Ed. 2d 1031", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "459 U.S. 1189", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6541568, 6541613, 6541774, 6541520 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/459/1189-02", "/us/459/1189-03", "/us/459/1189-04", "/us/459/1189-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 L. Ed. 2d 622", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "459 U.S. 1056", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6487664, 6487779 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/459/1056-01", "/us/459/1056-02" ] }, { "cite": "266 S.E.2d 87", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "92" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "220 Va. 971", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Va.", "case_ids": [ 2136061 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "979" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/va/220/0971-01" ] }, { "cite": "292 S.E.2d 264", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "276" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 691", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573061 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "710" }, { "page": "710" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0691-01" ] }, { "cite": "494 U.S. 433", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 4898 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "452", "parenthetical": "Kennedy, J., concurring" }, { "page": "387", "parenthetical": "Kennedy, J., concurring" }, { "page": "463" }, { "page": "398", "parenthetical": "Scalia, J., dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/494/0433-01" ] }, { "cite": "393 S.E.2d 527", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "529", "parenthetical": "rejecting defendant's argument that instruction could be understood by the jury as an opinion of the court that the absence of provocation had been proven" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "327 N.C. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2497512 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264", "parenthetical": "rejecting defendant's argument that instruction could be understood by the jury as an opinion of the court that the absence of provocation had been proven" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/327/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "400 S.E.2d 57", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "62" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2541929 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "238" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0231-01" ] }, { "cite": "451 S.E.2d 266", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Vause, 328 N.C. 231, 238, 400 S.E.2d 57, 62 (1991)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 N.C. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2558515 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "451", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Vause, 328 N.C. 231, 238, 400 S.E.2d 57, 62 (1991)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/339/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "451 S.E.2d 131", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 N.C. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2518881 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/338/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E.2d 375", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "378" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 655", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565416 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "659-60" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0655-01" ] }, { "cite": "407 S.E.2d 183", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "189" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2554014 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "404" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "453 S.E.2d 188", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 N.C. 619", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2558850, 2558601, 2557395, 2557494, 2556220 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/339/0619-02", "/nc/339/0619-03", "/nc/339/0619-01", "/nc/339/0619-05", "/nc/339/0619-04" ] }, { "cite": "451 S.E.2d 543", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "561" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 N.C. 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2556750 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "92" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/339/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 U.S.L. W. 3833", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "U.S.L.W.", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "449 S.E.2d 709", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "724" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 N.C. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2519858 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "92-93" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/338/0064-01" ] }, { "cite": "333 S.E.2d 245", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "252" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4696763 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "243" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "242 S.E.2d 769", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 446", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573979 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0446-01" ] }, { "cite": "298 S.E.2d 631", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562282 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "427 U.S. 97", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6174831 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/427/0097-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 U.S. 83", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11716714 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/373/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "415 S.E.2d 351", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 N.C. 267", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2499656 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/331/0267-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 L. Ed. 2d 547", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "443 S.E.2d 14", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "336 N.C. 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2538239 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "198" }, { "page": "198" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/336/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "415 S.E.2d 716", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "716" }, { "page": "717" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 N.C. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2499251 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/331/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "337 S.E.2d 786", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "797", "parenthetical": "no prejudicial error or abuse of discretion in refusing to allow defense counsel to elicit information from juror where defendant did not exhaust his peremptory challenges" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4715685 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "21", "parenthetical": "no prejudicial error or abuse of discretion in refusing to allow defense counsel to elicit information from juror where defendant did not exhaust his peremptory challenges" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "440 S.E.2d 826", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "834", "parenthetical": "no prejudicial error in not allowing defense counsel to question potential juror who was challenged peremptorily where defendant failed to exhaust peremptory challenges" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 N.C. 618", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2529753 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "633", "parenthetical": "no prejudicial error in not allowing defense counsel to question potential juror who was challenged peremptorily where defendant failed to exhaust peremptory challenges" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/335/0618-01" ] }, { "cite": "234 S.E.2d 574", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "577" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 N.C. 617", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571639 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "621" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/292/0617-01" ] }, { "cite": "404 S.E.2d 821", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2555965 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 L. Ed. 2d 1181", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "448 U.S. 918", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1787666, 1787631 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/448/0918-02", "/us/448/0918-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 L. Ed. 2d 1137", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "448 U.S. 907", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1787596, 1787636, 1787637, 1787575, 1787641, 1787643 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/448/0907-04", "/us/448/0907-02", "/us/448/0907-06", "/us/448/0907-01", "/us/448/0907-05", "/us/448/0907-03" ] }, { "cite": "259 S.E.2d 510", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572332 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0306-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 L. Ed. 2d 299", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "469 U.S. 963", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12034269, 12034334 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/469/0963-01", "/us/469/0963-02" ] }, { "cite": "316 S.E.2d 197", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4679881 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 L. Ed. 2d 913", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "411 S.E.2d 806", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "330 N.C. 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2509298 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/330/0501-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 L. Ed. 2d 602", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "494 U.S. 1022", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5540, 5547, 5516, 5166, 5366, 4823, 5560 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/494/1022-04", "/us/494/1022-06", "/us/494/1022-03", "/us/494/1022-05", "/us/494/1022-01", "/us/494/1022-02", "/us/494/1022-07" ] }, { "cite": "373 S.E.2d 400", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "323 N.C. 407", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2565178 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/323/0407-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 L. Ed. 2d 429", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "444 S.E.2d 879", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "336 N.C. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2537586 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/336/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 U.S.L.W. 3873", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "U.S.L.W.", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "451 S.E.2d 196", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 N.C. 263", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2557629 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/339/0263-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 L. Ed. 2d 147", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "447 S.E.2d 748", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "767" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 N.C. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2551126 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "502" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/337/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 L. Ed. 2d 924", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "129 L. Ed. 2d 895", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "433 S.E.2d 144", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "164" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2530367 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "244" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 S.E.2d 304", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "335" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4760257 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "375" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0326-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 S.E.2d 170", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 674", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4761257 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0674-01" ] }, { "cite": "305 S.E.2d 703", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 26", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4763650 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0026-01" ] }, { "cite": "319 S.E.2d 163", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4686205 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0465-01" ] }, { "cite": "325 S.E.2d 181", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 669", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4758195 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0669-01" ] }, { "cite": "364 S.E.2d 373", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 570", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2569559 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0570-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 S.E.2d 713", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4694780 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0203-01" ] }, { "cite": "352 S.E.2d 653", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4741422 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/319/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 L. Ed. 2d 267", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "471 U.S. 1120", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6387653, 6387846, 6387984, 6387541, 6387381 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/471/1120-03", "/us/471/1120-04", "/us/471/1120-05", "/us/471/1120-02", "/us/471/1120-01" ] }, { "cite": "314 S.E.2d 493", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "503" }, { "page": "503" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "310 N.C. 632", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2395675 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "648" }, { "page": "648" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/310/0632-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 L. Ed. 2d 704", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "464 U.S. 1004", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6493174 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/464/1004-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 L. Ed. 2d 177", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "464 U.S. 865", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6401817 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/464/0865-01" ] }, { "cite": "301 S.E.2d 335", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "354-55" }, { "page": "356" }, { "page": "355" }, { "page": "356" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 47", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4709664 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "79" }, { "page": "81-82" }, { "page": "80" }, { "page": "80-81" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 L. Ed. 2d 532", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "130 L. Ed. 2d 162", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "439 S.E.2d 547", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 N.C. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2530932 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/335/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 L. Ed. 2d 292", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "448 S.E.2d 93", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 N.C. 505", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2551833 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/337/0505-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 L. Ed. 2d 406", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "484 U.S. 970", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 600992, 599913, 599204, 599758 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/484/0970-03", "/us/484/0970-02", "/us/484/0970-01", "/us/484/0970-04" ] }, { "cite": "358 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "23" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4730916 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "211" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0179-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 L. Ed. 2d 912", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "485 U.S. 1036", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 13312, 13445, 13287, 13545, 13740, 13965, 13233, 14131, 13397, 13238, 13399, 13750, 13849, 13725 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/485/1036-05", "/us/485/1036-12", "/us/485/1036-11", "/us/485/1036-04", "/us/485/1036-06", "/us/485/1036-14", "/us/485/1036-08", "/us/485/1036-10", "/us/485/1036-01", "/us/485/1036-02", "/us/485/1036-13", "/us/485/1036-03", "/us/485/1036-09", "/us/485/1036-07" ] }, { "cite": "362 S.E.2d 244", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "251" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "494 U.S. 433", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 4898 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "435" }, { "page": "387" }, { "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/494/0433-01" ] }, { "cite": "443 S.E.2d 14", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "336 N.C. 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2538239 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/336/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "417 S.E.2d 237", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "244", "parenthetical": "Meyer, J., dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "331 N.C. 636", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2496946 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "648", "parenthetical": "Meyer, J., dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/331/0636-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 S.E.2d 144", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "157", "parenthetical": "\"The unanimity requirement is only placed upon the finding of whether an aggravating . . . circumstance exists.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4708380 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "219", "parenthetical": "\"The unanimity requirement is only placed upon the finding of whether an aggravating . . . circumstance exists.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 S.E.2d 755", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "768" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 141", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4739612 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "162" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0141-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 S.E.2d 319", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "326" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4739096 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "574" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/319/0562-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 2501, "char_count": 123606, "ocr_confidence": 0.736, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.4279219030182665e-07, "percentile": 0.920733602615442 }, "sha256": "5f97ffb67708d258f521621c68201ebff0aec81cc9e1678436c4f5a39f5de5ce", "simhash": "1:0b698032366a9cda", "word_count": 20160 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:14:42.837437+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justice WHICHARD joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERNEST PAUL McCARVER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MITCHELL, Chief Justice.\nDefendant was indicted for the 2 January 1987 murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon of Woodrow F. Hartley. He was tried capitally at the 18 April 1988 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Cabarrus County, and was found guilty of both crimes. The jury recommended a sentence of death for the murder, and the trial court sentenced defendant accordingly. The trial court sentenced defendant to forty years in prison for the robbery with a dangerous weapon conviction. On appeal, this Court ordered a new trial on both charges, concluding that prejudicial error occurred when jurors were excused during the capital trial as a result of unrecorded bench conferences between the trial court and jurors in the absence of defendant and his counsel. State v. McCarver, 329 N.C. 259, 404 S.E.2d 821 (1991).\nDefendant\u2019s second trial occurred at the 8 September 1992 Special Criminal Session of Superior Court, Cabarrus County, before a jury selected from a special venire from Rowan County. Defendant was again convicted of murder in the first degree and robbery with a dangerous weapon. In a capital sentencing proceeding, the jury recommended and the trial court ordered a sentence of death for the murder conviction. The trial court also imposed a sentence of forty years\u2019 imprisonment for robbery with a dangerous weapon. Defendant now appeals to this Court.\nEvidence presented by the State and defendant at the guilt-innocence and sentencing phases of defendant\u2019s trial tended to show the following facts and circumstances: Woodrow F. Hartley was killed on 2 January 1987. An autopsy revealed that Hartley suffered from a bruised neck, a scrape on his chin, a skin tear on his wrist, and three knife wounds to the chest. Dr. Robert L. Thompson, a forensic pathologist, testified that Hartley was alive at the time his neck was injured and that his death was caused by a stab wound which made a one-half inch incision in his aorta. Additionally, Dr. Thompson testified that Hartley had several fractured ribs on his left side which appeared to be caused by something consistent with a person\u2019s knees pressed against the ribs.\nWhile working at K & W Cafeteria in Concord, North Carolina, defendant and his brother, Lee McCarver, met and were befriended by Woodrow Hartley. Defendant was sporadically employed at the cafeteria from September 1977 through June 1984. Defendant\u2019s usual job was to wash dishes.\nOn 1 March 1984, defendant was placed on probation for his conviction of eight counts of felonious larceny and one count of forgery. Shortly thereafter, defendant was sent to prison for violating his probation. Defendant believed that Woodrow Hartley, James O\u2019Neal, or defendant\u2019s father was responsible for his probation being revoked.\nIn September 1986, defendant was employed by Shearin Roofing Company in Monroe. While employed with the roofing company, defendant often sought ways to get money. Defendant told coworkers about an old man who worked at K & W Cafeteria who would be an easy target to rob because he always arrived early in the morning to open the cafeteria. Additionally, defendant said the old man had a lot of money on him, especially near payday.\nOn the evening of 1 January 1987, defendant borrowed a knife from a fellow employee. Early the following morning, defendant and Jimmy Rape drove to Concord in defendant\u2019s brown Pontiac. At some time between 4:15 and 4:20 a.m. on Friday, 2 January 1987, defendant was observed by a police officer traveling toward the Carolina Mall in Concord.\nFrom his past employment, defendant was aware that the victim came to work early in the morning. On 2 January 1987, defendant and Rape entered through the rear entrance of the K & W Cafeteria shortly after Hartley arrived at 5:00 a.m. Defendant walked up to Hartley and talked to him for a few minutes. Rape grabbed Hartley from behind in a headlock and attempted to strangle him. Rape released Hartley, who was then grabbed by defendant in a headlock. When defendant let him go, Hartley fell to the ground. Defendant took a knife from his pants pocket and stuck it into Hartley\u2019s chest several times. Hartley died within minutes.\nGene Blovsky, an employee of the cafeteria, observed defendant\u2019s automobile parked near the back door of the cafeteria. He saw defendant emerge from behind a wall; defendant was carrying a knife, which he attempted to hide in his right hand. Next, Blovsky saw Hartley lying on the floor in the hallway with a spot of blood on his wrist. Blovsky saw another man near Hartley, realized what had happened, became frightened, and ran out the door. Blovsky then observed defendant and Rape as they left the cafeteria and drove off slowly in defendant\u2019s automobile.\nDefendant and Rape went to David Shearin\u2019s residence at 7:00 a.m. on 2 January 1987 to receive their work assignments. Before going to their assigned job site, defendant and Rape pawned a 1902 silver dollar, which had been taken from the victim, for seven dollars at a Monroe pawn shop. Defendant and Rape were arrested by Monroe police at their assigned job site.\nAfter the arrest, defendant and Rape were transported to the Concord Police Department in separate vehicles. Detective Dennis Andrade read defendant his rights. When asked whether he would answer questions without an attorney, defendant responded that he would and signed a waiver. Detective John Hatley was present with Detective Andrade when defendant gave his stat\u00e9ment.\nInitially, defendant did not give information pertaining to the murder of Hartley at the K & W Cafeteria. Detective Andrade then informed defendant that the police knew everything and that defendant\u2019s brother, Lee, had told the police that he had passed defendant while driving his automobile to the K & W Cafeteria. After speaking with his brother, defendant confessed to murdering Hartley.\nSeveral days after defendant confessed to the crime, defendant\u2019s brother, Lee, was interviewed by Detective Andrade. Lee stated that after defendant had killed Hartley, defendant told Lee that he was going to the Kannapolis K & W Cafeteria to kill James O\u2019Neal. Defendant said he felt that O\u2019Neal was responsible for his probation being revoked.\nDr. Faye Sultan, a clinical forensic psychologist, testified as an expert regarding her examination and evaluation of defendant. Dr. Sultan\u2019s testimony was that defendant was diagnosed as suffering from borderline intellectual functioning with the intellectual and emotional capability of a ten- or twelve-year-old. Defendant had a history of acute depression throughout his life, leading to a diagnosis of dysthymia. Defendant had a substance and alcohol abuse disorder stemming from his childhood experiences. Additionally, defendant was diagnosed as having a personality disorder that was a direct consequence of sexual abuse as a child and a total lack of nurturing. Dr. Sultan also testified that defendant suffered from a mental and emotional disorder that affected his conduct and impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct and that he had a history of passive orientation and nonviolence. Dr. Sultan felt that defendant functioned well in a structured environment as demonstrated by his record while in custody. Additionally, Dr. Sultan testified that defendant suffered greatly from having been emotionally neglected.\nOn the murder charge, the jury was instructed that it could find defendant guilty of first-degree murder, guilty of second-degree murder, or not guilty. On the robbery charge, the jury was instructed that it could return a verdict of guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon or not guilty. The jury returned verdicts of guilty of first-degree murder (under theories of premeditation and deliberation and of felony murder) and guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon.\nIn seven assignments of error, defendant contends that errors made by the trial court during the jury selection and guilt determination phases entitle him to a new trial. As to each of these assignments of error, defendant contends that both his federal and state constitutional rights were violated. While defendant couches all of his assignments of error in constitutional terms, many of them involve only a question of whether a particular statute or rule of law was followed by the trial court in its rulings. As to each of these assignments of error, a determination that the particular statutes or rules of law have not been violated resolves any possible question of a constitutional violation.\nIn defendant\u2019s first assignment of error, he contends that the trial court committed reversible error in sustaining objections to his questions of a prospective juror regarding the juror\u2019s views about defendant\u2019s mental impairments and psychiatric testimony. Defendant argues that his questions were proper under the law and were designed to enable him to select an impartial jury and make intelligent use of his peremptory challenges. Defendant contends that the restrictions on his inquiries violated his federal and state constitutional rights to due process of law and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. We conclude that the trial court did not unduly restrict defendant\u2019s inquiries regarding the juror\u2019s views; therefore, defendant\u2019s federal and state constitutional rights were not violated.\nIt is well established that both the State and defendant are entitled to a fair and unbiased jury. \u201c[T]he primary purpose of the voir dire of prospective jurors is to select an impartial jury.\u201d State v. Lee, 292 N.C. 617, 621, 234 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1977).\nThe focus of defendant\u2019s argument is the voir dire examination of potential juror Danny Burton by defense counsel. The following colloquy occurred:\nMe. Grossman: I\u2019m not sure I understand now. Let me make sure I understand. I believe you said that everybody who commits first degree murder\u2014\nJuror Burton: Premeditated.\nMr. Grossman: . . . premeditated murder should receive the death penalty\u2014\nJuror Burton: Yes.\nMr. Grossman: . . . period.\nJuror Burton: Period.\nMr. Grossman: No matter what they show as the mitigating factors.\nJuror Burton: Okay, I understand that. No, that shouldn\u2019t. I understand what you\u2019re saying now.\nMr. Grossman: Can you explain why you\u2019ve sort of changed? Maybe you don\u2019t understand. Maybe I don\u2019t understand, that\u2019s not unusual either.\nJuror Burton: Well, it\u2019s just my opinion that a premeditated murder should be \u2014 you know \u2014 is a capital crime which should be punishable by death; but there are extreme circumstances, I reckon, or mitigating factors that would say, you know, that it\u2019s not justified punishment.\nMr. Grossman: Let me ask you this: Would you be able to consider \u2014 we asked this question earlier \u2014 what type of mitigation would you require in order to consider a life sentence?\nMr. Kenerly: Objection.\nThe Court: Sustained.\nMr. Grossman: Would you be able to consider psychological testimony about Mr. McCarver himself as mitigating?\nMr. Kenerly: Objection.\nThe Court: Sustained.\nUsing one of his peremptory challenges, defendant excused Burton. At the end of the selection process for the twelve regular jurors and the two alternate jurors, defendant had four peremptory challenges remaining. Thus, defendant cannot show prejudice as it relates to sustaining the objections as to questions asked of juror Burton. State v. Conner, 335 N.C. 618, 633, 440 S.E.2d 826, 834 (1994) (no prejudicial error in not allowing defense counsel to question potential juror who was challenged peremptorily where defendant failed to exhaust peremptory challenges); State v. Avery, 315 N.C. 1, 21, 337 S.E.2d 786, 797 (1985) (no prejudicial error or abuse of discretion in refusing to allow defense counsel to elicit information from juror where defendant did not exhaust his peremptory challenges).\nDefendant further argues that the trial court tended to keep all inquiries about psychological testimony out of the selection process and that the trial court\u2019s ruling in regard to juror Burton chilled subsequent inquiry as to potential jurors\u2019 attitudes on psychological testimony through the remainder of the selection process. Defendant\u2019s assertions are unsupported by the record. The record indicates that defendant was permitted to question at least five other potential jurors about psychological evidence. Four of the five jurors were questioned after defendant used his peremptory challenge to excuse Burton. Thus, we conclude that defendant\u2019s inquiry as to jurors\u2019 attitudes about psychological testimony was not chilled by the trial court\u2019s ruling and that defendant has not shown prejudicial error in the jury selection process. Defendant was able to select a fair and impartial jury; thus, we reject defendant\u2019s first assignment of error.\nBy his second assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court committed error by denying his motion to quash the venire after the district court had excused many prospective jurors outside the presence of defendant and his counsel. Specifically, defendant argues that by excusing twenty-three prospective jurors and deferring seven prospective jurors prior to the jury voir dire, the district court violated three of defendant\u2019s important protections: (1) his unwaivable state constitutional right to be present at each stage of the capital proceeding, (2) his federal constitutional right to due process of law, and (3) a statutory right to a complete recordation of the jury selection proceedings in a capital case. We find no merit in defendant\u2019s contentions.\nEach of defendant\u2019s contentions assumes that the actions of the trial court occurred during a stage of his capital trial. Here, however, the actions complained of occurred prior to the commencement of defendant\u2019s capital trial. Thus, the statute and cases cited by defendant do not apply. Defendant did not have a right to be present when the district court judge in Rowan County excused the prospective jurors; therefore, his statutory right and constitutional rights were not violated.\nBecause of the publicity surrounding this case, the trial court determined that a jury should be selected from Rowan County and that the jury would be transported every day from Rowan to Cabarrus County. Superior Court Judge James C. Davis signed an order directing the selection of a special venire from Rowan County, and the names for the special venire were drawn during the month of August 1992. Defendant and his counsel were not present when the names for the special venire were drawn or when the district court judge in Rowan County excused twenty-three jurors and deferred seven during the screening process, which was completed on 28 August 1992. However, defendant made no requests to attend either of those proceedings.\nOn 2 September 1992, defendant filed a written motion to quash the venire on the basis that neither defendant nor his counsel had been present when the district court judge excused and deferred persons selected for the venire. Defendant\u2019s case was called for trial on 8 September 1992. Before jury voir dire for the trial started, defendant\u2019s motion was heard; after arguments, it was denied.\nA similar situation was before this Court in State v. Cole, 331 N.C. 272, 415 S.E.2d 716 (1992). In Cole, the presiding superior court judge heard excuses from members of a venire who had been summoned to serve for a session of court that started on 17 July 1989. The report of the case does not indicate that defendant made any request to be present during the screening process. The presiding superior court judge questioned individual members of the venire at the bench, off the record and out of the presence of defendant and defendant\u2019s counsel. The record indicated that the judge \u201cexcused those or deferred those that seemed appropriate.\u201d Id. at 274, 415 S.E.2d at 716. The remaining members of the venire were administered the oath and dismissed until the next day, 18 July 1989, when the defendant\u2019s case was called for trial. We held that it was error to excuse jurors after an unrecorded bench conferences on 19 July 1989 because the defendant\u2019s capital trial had commenced and his unwaivable right of presence had attached. However, we rejected the defendant\u2019s argument that the trial court committed error by dismissing members of the venire prior to trial and out of defendant\u2019s presence. We explained our reasoning as follows:\nIn this case, it was not error for the court to excuse prospective jurors after the unrecorded bench conferences on 17 July 1989. The defendant\u2019s trial had not commenced at that time. The jurors were not excused at a stage of the defendant\u2019s trial and the defendant did not have the right to be present at the conferences.\nId. at 275, 415 S.E.2d at 717.\nLikewise, in this case, defendant\u2019s capital trial had not begun at the time the potential jurors were excused or deferred by the district court judge. Since defendant\u2019s capital trial had not commenced, defendant\u2019s unwaivable right of presence had not attached. Id.\nDefendant distinguishes Cole from this case by arguing that the jury venire in Cole was not picked for a specific trial; while, in this case, the venire was picked specifically for defendant\u2019s trial. Essentially, defendant argues that the trial actually began when the district court judge heard excuses pursuant to the authority granted under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 9-6(b). Defendant does not cite, and we are unable to find, any authority for the proposition that a capital trial begins prior to the calling of the case for trial. Furthermore, the selection process authorized by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 9-6(b) is essentially a pretrial screening process which is delegated to the district court, rather than a part of the capital trial. The district court has no authority to conduct a capital trial; only the superior court has such authority. We decline to extend the unwaivable right to be present at every stage of a capital trial to pretrial jury selection matters.\nIn his third assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to inform jurors that defendant had been previously tried and that corrective appellate review would be available in this case. Defendant argues that this error tended to diminish the jury\u2019s responsibility, thereby denying defendant his federal and state constitutional rights to a fair trial, due process of law, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. We conclude that the prosecutor\u2019s statements did not tend to diminish the jury\u2019s responsibility in this capital case; therefore, defendant\u2019s state and federal constitutional rights were not violated.\nDuring the jury selection process, the prosecutor made the following statement:\nTwo other things that you are going to realize is that there has been a previous trial of this matter; and this is a new trial. The information that will be presented, you\u2019ll be hearing for the first time. Can you try this case based upon the evidence that is taken and the law that you receive instruction on and make a decision based on that and not be concerned about any other proceedings that [a]ffected Mr. McCarver? If you have any doubts about your ability to do that, if you\u2019d raise your hand.\nDefendant did not object to this statement by the prosecutor. Nevertheless, defendant now contends that this statement tended to diminish the jurors\u2019 sense of responsibility for their verdict by suggesting that the verdict might be reviewed. We do not agree.\nThe prosecutor\u2019s comment about a previous trial was made without elaboration as to how the new trial came about and with no comment on the results of the prior trial. Clearly, the jurors\u2019 understanding of their responsibilities was not diminished by the prosecutor\u2019s statement, and no fundamental right to a fair trial was denied. See State v. Green, 336 N.C. 142, 443 S.E.2d 14, cert. denied, \u2014 U.S. \u2014, 130 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1994); State v. Simpson, 331 N.C. 267, 415 S.E.2d 351 (1992). This assignment of error is without merit.\nIn his fourth assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in rescinding its prior order which required that a special venire be summoned in Mecklenburg County for the purpose of selecting a jury to try defendant\u2019s case. Defendant contends that his state and federal constitutional rights to a fair trial, due process of law, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment were violated. Additionally, defendant contends that his statutory right to a complete recordation of the proceedings in a capital case was violated. We reject defendant\u2019s contentions.\nThe trial court rescinded its special venire order prior to the commencement of defendant\u2019s trial. As stated in response to defendant\u2019s second assignment of error, defendant did not have an unwaivable right of presence at the jury selection proceedings which took place prior to his case being called for trial. Additionally, defendant\u2019s statutory right to a recordation of the capital trial was not violated by the pretrial order.\nThe record in this case discloses that the trial court rescinded its order for a special venire from Mecklenburg County because administrative support and physical facilities were not available in Mecklenburg County due to the trial of another capital case. Thus, no abuse of discretion appears. Further, there is no indication that defendant ever requested that pretrial matters be recorded. Accordingly, we reject this assignment of error.\nBy his fifth assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his motion for the disclosure of material evidence in the possession of the prosecutor. Defendant further argues that the trial court committed error in denying his motions for a mistrial or, in the alternative, a new sentencing hearing. Defendant contends a mistrial should have been granted based on the prosecution\u2019s use of an undisclosed statement of defendant that substantially prejudiced him by permitting the prosecutor to rely on an improper argument for motive at the guilt determination phase of the trial. Defendant contends that the trial court\u2019s error violated his federal and state constitutional rights to a fair trial, due process of law, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. We conclude that no error was committed by the trial court; thus, defendant\u2019s state and federal constitutional rights were not violated.\nPursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-903(a)(2), defendant made a pretrial request for voluntary discovery, seeking in part the disclosure of any statement made by defendant regardless of the person to whom the statement was made. Defendant simultaneously made a motion, pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 49 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1976), for the disclosure of exculpatory information, including matters which suggested a lessened culpability of defendant with respect to guilt or punishment. The prosecution responded that all such matters had been disclosed. The trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion for the disclosure of exculpatory information; however, the trial court made it clear that if anything became available to the State, the State must immediately notify the defense both by telephone and in writing.\nUnder N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-910, when a party fails to comply with a discovery order, the trial court may grant a continuance or a recess, prohibit the violating party from introducing the nondisclosed evidence, or enter any other appropriate order. Because the trial court is not required to impose any sanctions for abuse of discovery orders, what sanctions to impose, if any, are within the trial court\u2019s discretion. State v. Alston, 307 N.C. 321, 298 S.E.2d 631 (1983); State v. Braxton, 294 N.C. 446, 242 S.E.2d 769 (1978).\nAt the capital sentencing proceeding, Lee McCarver testified for defendant. He was cross-examined by the State about a statement he had made five years earlier to police. Lee indicated that he did not recall the statement. Defendant objected and moved to strike the question; the objection was allowed, and the jury was instructed to disregard the question.\nOutside the presence of the jury, defendant moved for a mistrial or a new capital sentencing proceeding. In the ensuing discussion between counsel and the trial court, it was determined that the State had in its possession a written statement from Lee McCarver to an officer of the Concord Police Department that had not come to the prosecutor\u2019s attention until the preceding day. Lee\u2019s statement related to defendant\u2019s belief that Hartley was responsible for defendant\u2019s parole being revoked. The statement had not been furnished to defendant prior to trial. The trial court denied both the motion for a mistrial and the motion for a new capital sentencing proceeding.\nIn State v. Blackstock, this Court concluded that \u201c[a] mistrial is appropriate only when there are such serious improprieties as would make it impossible to attain a fair and impartial verdict under the law.\u201d State v. Blackstock, 314 N.C. 232, 243, 333 S.E.2d 245, 252 (1985). Whether to grant a motion for mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is so clearly erroneous as to amount to a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Ward, 338 N.C. 64, 92-93, 449 S.E.2d 709, 724 (1994), cert. denied, - U.S. -, \u2014 L. Ed. 2d -, 63 U.S.L. W. 3833 (1995). In this case, we conclude that the prosecution\u2019s conduct did not amount to such a serious impropriety as to make it impossible for defendant to receive a fair and impartial verdict. For this reason, we conclude that the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion for a mistrial did not amount to a manifest abuse of discretion reversible on appeal.\nAs for the trial court\u2019s refusal to grant a new capital sentencing proceeding, we again find no error. Defendant has failed to show any abuse by the State of the discovery order or any abuse of discretion by the trial court. The prosecutor discovered the existence of Lee McCarver\u2019s statement only a day before seeking its admission. Even if we were to assume some culpability on the part of the prosecutor for not immediately bringing the statement to the attention of defendant, the trial court sustained defendant\u2019s objection and instructed the jury to disregard any reference to the statement. Jurors are presumed to follow a trial court\u2019s instructions. State v. Rouse, 339 N.C. 59, 92, 451 S.E.2d 543, 561 (1994), reconsideration denied, 339 N.C. 619, 453 S.E.2d 188, petition for cert, filed, (No. 94-9360, 19 May 1995). Consequently, defendant has failed to show any prejudice from these statements. This assignment of error is without merit.\nIn his sixth assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing defense counsel to make important tactical decisions about this case without allowing defendant\u2019s wishes to control in violation of this Court\u2019s opinion in State v. Ali, 329 N.C. 394, 407 S.E.2d 183 (1991). We do not believe that Ali applies here, and we reject defendant\u2019s argument.\nDuring the State\u2019s cross-examination of Lee McCarver, defendant asked to speak to the trial court outside the presence of the jury. Before addressing the trial court, defendant spoke privately with defense counsel, who, after the discussion, stated that defendant \u201cwill not speak.\u201d Defense counsel then said that Lee McCarver\u2019s testimony \u201chad a profound effect upon [defendant].\u201d Concerned that his client might walk out of the proceeding and delay its progression, defense counsel stated:\nTwo or three times this morning [defendant] wanted me to stop the trial and I refused. Frankly, I was on the edge of my seat wondering if [defendant] would simply get up and walk out. I\u2019m not saying he\u2019s violent or anything like that, but he\u2019s just having a hard time hearing it.\nI would like the Court to know that, if I may. I will not let [defendant] run this case. He knows that. He does not control the defense, he can make suggestions. But if his state is so bad, Your Honor, I may stand up at a point and say, \u201cMay we have a short recess?\u201d\nDefendant also points to the fact that he was not consulted in the peremptory excusal of prospective juror Cindy Grant.\nIn Ali, this Court held that \u201cwhen counsel and a fully informed criminal defendant client reach an absolute impasse as to . . . tactical decisions, the client\u2019s wishes must control.\u201d Ali, 329 N.C. at 404, 407 S.E.2d at 189. Although defense counsel in the present case may have employed a better choice of words in describing the situation at the time, we find no indication in the record of \u201can absolute impasse\u201d between the client and the defense team as it concerned trial tactics. At no time did defendant voice any complaints to the trial court as to the tactics of his defense team. Accordingly, we conclude that defense counsel acted properly, and we reject this assignment of error.\nIn his seventh assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court committed constitutional error in its jury instructions on the principle of acting in concert. Defendant argues that these instructions allowed the jury to apply the principle of acting in concert to convict defendant of specific-intent crimes if it found that another perpetrator had the requisite mens rea to commit them and that the instructions did not require jurors to determine whether defendant ever formed the specific intent required to commit the underlying felony supporting felony murder. We find no error in the trial court\u2019s jury instructions.\nAt the jury instruction conference and before the jury began its deliberation, the trial judge inquired as to whether there were any objections to his giving pattern jury instructions on acting in concert. Defendant did not object to the instructions nor did he request additional instructions or corrections. The trial court gave the pattern jury instructions. Since defendant did not object at trial to these instructions, this issue is before this Court for review only for \u201cplain error.\u201d State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 300 S.E.2d 375 (1983).\nIn State v. Abraham, 338 N.C. 315, 451 S.E.2d 131 (1994), this Court recently addressed the doctrine of acting in concert. This Court stated:\nUnder the doctrine of acting in concert, where a single crime is involved, one may be found guilty of committing the crime if he is at the scene acting together with another with whom he shares a common plan to commit the crime, although the other person does all the acts necessary to effect commission of the crime. Under this doctrine, where multiple crimes are involved, when two or more persons act together in pursuit of a common plan, all are guilty only of those crimes included within the common plan committed by any one of the perpetrators. As a corollary to this latter principle, one may not be criminally responsible as an accomplice under the theory of acting in concert for a crime which requires a specific intent, unless he, himself, is shown to have the requisite specific intent. ... In other words, one may not be found guilty of a crime requiring a specific intent under the acting in concert doctrine unless the crime was part of the common purpose or the specific intent on the part of the one sought to be charged is independently proven.\nId. at 346, 451 S.E.2d'at 147 (citations omitted). We conclude that the instructions in this case were in compliance with the doctrine stated in Abraham.\nIn this case, the trial court gave the following instructions:\nMembers of the jury, for a person to be guilty of a crime it is not necessary that he himself do all the acts necessary to constitute the crime. If one or more persons act together with a common purpose to commit a robbery with a dangerous weapon, each of them is held responsible for the acts of the others done in the commission of that crime.\nSo members of the jury, I charge that if you find from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that on or about the date in question the defendant, acting either by himself or acting together with Jimmy Rape, had in his possession a dangerous weapon, and took and carried away property from the person or in the presence of a person without his voluntary consent by endangering or threatening his life with the use or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, the defendant knowing that he was not entitled to take the property and intending to deprive that person of its use permanently, it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon.\nAt another point, the trial court gave the following instruction:\nSo finally I charge that if you find from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the date in question the defendant, acting either by himself or acting together with Jimmy Rape, had in his possession a dangerous weapon, and took and carried away the property from the person or in the presence of a person without his voluntary consent by endangering or threatening their life with the use or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, the defendant knowing that he was not entitled to take the property, and intended to deprive that person of its use permanently; and if you further find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that while committing the crime of robbery with a dangerous weapon, the defendant killed the victim, and that the defendant\u2019s act was a proximate cause of the victim\u2019s death, it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty of first degree murder under the felony murder rule.\nSpecifically, defendant contends that the italicized portions of the above instructions allowed the jury to convict him of crimes regardless of whether defendant himself had the requisite specific intent required to commit the crime. We find no merit in defendant\u2019s argument.\nA review of the instructions as a whole indicates that the jury was not misled to believe that it could convict defendant based on the intent of his confederate; rather, the instructions made it clear that defendant could have acted either alone or with another to commit the felony. Additionally, the instructions made clear that in order to convict defendant, defendant himself must have had the requisite mens rea. We conclude that the instructions in this case were in conformity with the acting in concert doctrine as set forth in Abraham-, therefore, the trial court did not commit error, much less plain error.\nIn his final assignment of error relating to the guilt determination phase, defendant argues that the trial court committed error in instructing the jury that premeditation and deliberation could be inferred from a lack of evidence of provocation. According to defendant, this instruction misled the jury, was not supported by the evidence or applicable legal authorities, impermissibly shifted the burden of proof, and constituted an inappropriate expression of judicial opinion on the evidence, thereby denying defendant his federal and state constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process of law. We reject defendant\u2019s contention.\nThe trial court gave the following jury instruction:\n[N] either premeditation nor deliberation is usually susceptible of direct proof. They may be proved by proof of circumstances from which they may be inferred, such as[] lack of provocation by the victim, conduct of the defendant before, during, or after the killing; threats and declarations of the defendant, use of grossly excessive force, infliction of lethal wounds after the victim is felled, brutal or vicious circumstances of the killing, or the manner in which or means by which the killing was done.\nDefendant did not object to the instruction. Thus, our review is for plain error only.\nWe note that defendant concedes that the trial court followed the pattern jury instructions in giving this instruction. Furthermore, the instruction was consistent with previous decisions of this Court which have stated that \u201c[p]remeditation and deliberation may be inferred from \u2018lack of provocation on the part of the deceased.\u2019 \u201d State v. Weathers, 339 N.C. 441, 451, 451 S.E.2d 266, 272 (1994) (quoting State v. Vause, 328 N.C. 231, 238, 400 S.E.2d 57, 62 (1991)). This Court has also previously stated that the trial court\u2019s \u201cmere recital\u201d of circumstances from which premeditation and deliberation may be inferred \u201ccannot be construed as an expression of an opinion that any of them have been proven.\u201d State v. Stevenson, 327 N.C. 259, 264, 393 S.E.2d 527, 529 (1990) (rejecting defendant\u2019s argument that instruction could be understood by the jury as an opinion of the court that the absence of provocation had been proven).\nAdditionally, from our review of the record, we conclude that the challenged instruction was justified by the evidence in this case. In this case, the evidence shows that there was no provocation by the victim. The evidence was that the victim, Mr. Hartley, was going about his ordinary duties when he was accosted by defendant and his companion, grabbed by the neck, choked, thrown to the floor, and then stabbed. This assignment of error has no merit.\nIn his first assignment of error concerning his capital sentencing proceeding, defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error during his capital sentencing proceeding by refusing to instruct the jury that it did not need to be unanimous in order to answer \u201cno\u201d to Issue Three on the \u201cIssues and Recommendation as to Punishment\u201d form. He contends that, as a result, the instructions irreparably prejudiced him by reducing the State\u2019s burden of proof, improperly coerced a verdict, and deprived him of his federal and state constitutional rights. We disagree.\nIssue Three on the written Issues and Recommendation as to Punishment form given the jury in this case reads as follows:\nDo YOU UNANIMOUSLY FIND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OR CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND BY ONE OR MORE OF YOU IS, OR ARE, INSUFFICIENT TO OUTWEIGH THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OR CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND UNANIMOUSLY BY YOU IN ISSUE ONE?\nAfter deliberating for several hours, the jury sent a written inquiry to the trial court regarding Issue Three. The note read, \u201cMust there be twelve votes, \u2018Yes,\u2019 or twelve votes, \u2018No,\u2019 to reach a unanimous decision?\u201d After conferring with counsel, the trial court gave the following instruction:\nThe answer to that is, Yes, it must be a unanimous twelve person decision as to any answer you reach to that issue, whether it be Yes or whether it be No. It must be a unanimous twelve person decision.\nDefendant requested that the trial court amend its instruction in this regard to direct the jury to answer \u201cno\u201d \u2014 thus recommending a sentence of life imprisonment \u2014 if it could not unanimously agree as to whether the mitigators were insufficient to outweigh the aggravators. The trial court denied this request.\nIn a capital sentencing proceeding, any jury recommendation requiring a sentence of death or life imprisonment must be unanimous. N.C. Const, art. I, \u00a7 24; N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b) (Supp. 1994). The policy reasons for the requirement of jury unanimity are clear. First, the jury unanimity requirement \u201cis an accepted, vital mechanism to ensure that real and full deliberation occurs in the jury room, and that the jury\u2019s ultimate decision will reflect the conscience of the community.\u201d McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 452, 108 L. Ed. 2d 369, 387 (1990) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (emphasis added). Second, the jury unanimity requirement prevents the jury from evading its duty to make a sentence recommendation. If jury unanimity is not required, then a jury that was uncomfortable in deciding life and death issues simply could \u201cagree to disagree\u201d and escape its duty to render a decision. This Court has refused to make any ruling which would tend to encourage a jury to avoid its responsibility by any such device. For example, we have expressly stated that a jury instruction that a life sentence would be imposed if a jury could not unanimously agree should never be given because it would be \u201ctantamount to \u2018an open invitation for the jury to avoid its responsibility and to disagree.\u2019 \u201d State v. Smith, 305 N.C. 691, 710, 292 S.E.2d 264, 276 (quoting Justus v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 971, 979, 266 S.E.2d 87, 92 (1980), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1056, 74 L. Ed. 2d 622 (1982), reh\u2019g denied, 459 U.S. 1189, 74 L. Ed. 2d 1031 (1983)). The jury may not be allowed to arbitrarily or capriciously take any such step which will require the trial court to impose or reject a sentence of death. State v. Pinch, 306 N.C. 1, 33, 292 S.E.2d 203, 227, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1056, 74 L. Ed. 2d 622 (1982), reh\u2019g denied, 459 U.S. 1189, 74 L. Ed. 2d 1031 (1983), overruled on other grounds by State v. Benson, 323 N.C. 318, 372 S.E.2d 517 (1988), and by State v. Robinson, 336 N.C. 78, 443 S.E.2d 306 (1994). Thoughtful and full deliberation in an effort to achieve unanimity has only a salutary effect on our judicial system: It tends to prevent arbitrary and capricious sentence recommendations.\nSince the sentence recommendation, if any, must be unanimous under constitutional and statutory provisions, and particularly in light of the overwhelming policy reasons for a unanimity requirement, we conclude that any issue which is outcome determinative as to the sentence a defendant in a capital trial will receive \u2014 whether death or life imprisonment \u2014 must be answered unanimously by the jury. That is, the jury should answer Issues One, Three, and Four on the standard form used in capital cases either unanimously \u201cyes\u201d or unanimously \u201cno.\u201d\nIn this case, the trial court submitted to the jury a written \u201cIssues and Recommendation as to Punishment\u201d form, which was slightly modified by the trial court from the standard form presented in the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instructions. N.C.P.I. \u2014 Crim. 150.10 app. (1993). The form submitted read:\nIssue One\nDo YOU UNANIMOUSLY FIND FROM THE EVIDENCE, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THE EXISTENCE OF ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES?\nAnswer:--\nIf you write, \u201cYes\u201d, in one or more of the spaces after the FOLLOWING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, WRITE, \u201cYES\u201d IN THE SPACE after Issue One as well.\nIf you write \u201cNo\u201d in all the spaces after the following aggravating CIRCUMSTANCES, WRITE \u201cNo\u201d IN THE SPACE AFTER ISSUE ONE.\nIf you answered Issue One \u201cNo\u201d, skip Issues Two, Three, and Four, and indicate Life Imprisonment under \u201cRecommendation as to Punishment,\u201d on the last page of this form.\nIf you answered Issue One \u201cYes\u201d, proceed to Issue Two.\nIssue Two\nDo YOU FIND FROM THE EVIDENCE THE EXISTENCE OF ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES?\nAnswer:--\nIf YOU ANSWERED ISSUE TWO \u201cYES\u201d, THEN ANSWER ISSUE THREE.\nIf YOU ANSWERED ISSUE TWO \u201cNo\u201d, THEN SKIP ISSUE THREE AND answer Issue Four.\nIssue Three\nDo you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OR CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND BY ONE OR MORE OF YOU IS, OR ARE, INSUFFICIENT TO OUTWEIGH THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OR CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND UNANIMOUSLY BY YOU IN ISSUE One?\nAnswer:-.\nIf you answer Issue Three \u201cNo\u201d, then indicate Life Imprisonment under \u201cRecommendations as to Punishment\u201d.\nIf you answer Issue Three \u201cYes\u201d, then proceed to Issue Four.\nIssue Four\nDo you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OR CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND UNANIMOUSLY BY you in Issue One is, or are, sufficiently substantial to call for \u25a0THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY WHEN CONSIDERED WITH THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OR CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND BY ONE OR MORE OF YOU?\nAnswer:--\nIf you answer Issue Four \u201cNo\u201d, indicate Life Imprisonment under \u201cRecommendation as to Punishment\u201d on the last page of this form.\nIf you answer Issue Four \u201cYes\u201d, indicate Death under \u201cRecommendation as to Punishment\u201d.\nRecommendation as to punishment\nIndicate your Recommendation as to Punishment by writing \u201cLife Imprisonment\u201d or \u201cDeath\u201d in the blank in the following SENTENCE:\nWe, the jury, unanimously recommend that the Defendant, _, BE SENTENCED to__\n(Emphasis added.)\nIf unanimity is required only when the jury answers \u201cyes\u201d for Issue Three, as defendant suggests, then the jury must be instructed to answer \u201cno\u201d \u2014 and to end the case by recommending life imprisonment \u2014 in two situations: (1) when the jury unanimously agrees to answer \u201cno,\u201d and (2) when the jury is not unanimous. Both the form given the jury and the jury instructions direct the jury that if it answers \u201cno\u201d to Issue Three, it must recommend life imprisonment. This instruction, if not coupled with an instruction requiring unanimity, conflicts with the Constitution of North Carolina and with the language of our death penalty statute and will force juries to recommend life imprisonment when they are not unanimous. Allowing nonunanimous juries to reach final sentence recommendations of life imprisonment is in direct contradiction to our statutory requirement that \u201cthe sentence recommendation must be agreed upon by a unanimous vote of the 12 jurors.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b); see Green, 336 N.C. 142, 443 S.E.2d 14.\nThe requirement of jury unanimity for either \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d answers for Issues One, Three, and Four ensures that the jury properly fulfills its duty to deliberate genuinely for a reasonable period of time in its efforts to exercise guided discretion in reaching a unanimous sentencing recommendation, as required by the Constitution of North Carolina and by our death penalty statute itself. The legislature intended just such a unanimity requirement and intended that should the jury be unable to agree unanimously as to any issue ultimately dispositive of life or death, the jury simply should report that fact to the trial court. It would then be the trial court\u2019s duty to impose a sentence of life imprisonment. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b) (\u201cIf the jury cannot, within a reasonable time, unanimously agree to its sentence recommendation, the judge shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment . . . .\u201d). The statutory scheme established by the legislature has the pronounced advantage of providing that a life sentence shall be entered by the trial court if the jury is unable to reach unanimity as to any of the dispositive issues. However, it does so without encouraging any juror to vote for death or life without honestly deliberating with the other jurors, simply because he or she has been informed that he alone may require that a sentence of life be entered by holding out against the other eleven jurors.\nThe defendant bases his argument on the language used in the printed \u201cIssues and Recommendation as to Punishment\u201d form drawn from the North Carolina Pattern Instructions and used in this case. N.C.P.I. \u2014 Crim. 150.10 app. Defendant argues that language used on the form requires that a negative response to Issue Three must be given when the jury cannot come to a unanimous decision as to the proper sentence. Although Issue Three on the form and the trial court\u2019s initial instructions on the issue may be subject to such interpretation, we will not allow such strained syntax and semantics to determine serious issues of law.\nAs discussed above, Issue Three as well as Issue One and Issue Four are ultimately dispositive of the jury\u2019s recommendation as to whether the defendant must live or die. See McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. at 463, 108 L. Ed. 2d at 398 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (Issues Three and Four are \u201cultimately dispositive\u201d). If a jury answers any of those three issues \u201cno,\u201d it must recommend a life sentence. If a jury answers all three of those issues \u201cyes,\u201d it must recommend a sentence of death. State v. Robbins, 319 N.C. 465, 515, 356 S.E.2d 279, 308-09, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 918, 98 L. Ed. 2d 226 (1987). The answers to all three of those ultimately dispositive issues leading to any such recommendation must be reached by unanimous decision, whether the jury answers \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b). If we do not require unanimity for a jury decision of any issue \u201cultimately dispositive\u201d as to its recommendation that a defendant live or die, we will violate both our Constitution and our capital punishment statute. Further, we will render capital sentencing proceedings in North Carolina arbitrary and capricious by allowing the unguided discretion of a single juror voting \u201cno\u201d to decide the sentence (life imprisonment) the defendant must receive.\nIf a jury is unable to agree as to Issue One, Issue Two, or Issue Three after a reasonable time, the trial court will of course be required to acknowledge that fact and itself enter a judgment of imprisonment for life. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b). The jury should not be made aware of this state of the law, however, as to inform the jury that its failure to agree on determinative issues will result in a sentence of life imprisonment would be an open invitation to the jury\u2014 or a single juror \u2014 to avoid its responsibility to fully deliberate and to force a recommendation of life by the simple expedient of disagreeing. State v. Smith, 305 N.C. at 710, 292 S.E.2d at 276. Thus, it has been our law that even when the jury specifically asks what the ultimate result will be if it fails to reach unanimity, the trial court may only inform the jurors that their inability to reach unanimity \u201cshould not be their concern but should simply be reported to the court.\u201d State v. Smith, 320 N.C. 404, 422, 358 S.E.2d 329, 339 (1987). Here, however, the jury made no such express or specific inquiry, and no such additional instruction was required. Id.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err in its oral answer to the jury\u2019s questions when it stated that the jury must be unanimous before answering either \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d to Issue Three \u2014 a dispositive issue with regard to the decision of whether the defendant must live or die. Further, the fact that Issue Three on the form used in this case, and the trial court\u2019s initial instructions on that issue, could be read as improperly directing that the jury answer \u201cno\u201d if unable to reach unanimity did not amount to prejudicial error. Assuming that the jury understood Issue Three on the written form to require it to answer \u201cno\u201d if it could not reach unanimity, such an erroneous instruction was favorable to the defendant; the jury would have thought that only one juror need have voted \u201cno\u201d to require that the jury answer the issue \u201cno\u201d and a sentence of life be entered. Such an error favorable to a defendant is clearly harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Bush, 307 N.C. 152, 297 S.E.2d 563 (1982) (improper instruction on self-defense which was advantageous to defendant held harmless beyond reasonable doubt). For the foregoing reasons, this assignment of error is without merit.\nIn a related assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury to resume deliberations in an effort to render a unanimous decision without offering the jury any specific way to report an inability to achieve unanimity.\nAfter the jury asked in a written question, \u201cMust there be twelve votes, \u2018Yes,\u2019 or twelve votes, \u2018No,\u2019 to reach a unanimous decision?\u201d the following colloquy occurred:\nThe Court: The answer to that is, Yes, it must be a unanimous twelve person decision as to any answer you reach to that issue, whether it be Yes or whether it be No. It must be a unanimous twelve person decision.\nDoes that answer your question?\nJuror Basinger: Yes, sir.\nOne more question, if I may ask. If there is not a unanimous decision, what steps are taken then as to the paper? Unless I\u2019m reading it wrong \u2014 -the reason that I\u2019m asking because the way that the question is stated I might look at it totally different than juror number one would look at it and that\u2019s the reason we came out to ask because we want to be sure of what we were reading.\nThe Court: Well, the answer is that it must be unanimous twelve person decision. If what you\u2019re saying is \u2014 you understand that it can\u2019t be a majority vote, it must be a unanimous twelve person decision. So I\u2019m going to ask you to continue deliberations with that instruction in mind. Does that answer your question?\nJuror Basinger: Yes, sir.\nDefendant contends the jury\u2019s question was an inquiry as to what the result would be if the jury failed to reach a unanimous decision. See Smith, 320 N.C. 404, 358 S.E.2d 329. We have held \u201cthat upon inquiry by the jury the trial court must inform the jurors that their inability to reach a unanimous verdict should not be their concern but should simply be reported to the court.\u201d Id. at 422, 358 S.E.2d at 339. This is not such a case.\nWe must examine the question posed by the jury in the context of the trial court\u2019s instructions to determine if it truly is an \u201cinquir[y] into the result of its failure to reach a unanimous verdict.\u201d Smith, 320 N.C. at 422, 358 S.E.2d at 339 (emphasis omitted). The jury\u2019s confusion in this case, as discussed above, concerned the phraseology used on the printed Issues and Recommendation as to Punishment form. After being instructed that it must be unanimous for either \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno,\u201d the jury, through its foreman, asked how to answer the confusing Issues and Recommendation form: \u201c[W]hat steps are taken then as to the paper?\u201d A moment later, the jury, through its foreman, reiterated its initial confusion caused by the form: \u201c[B]ecause the way that the question is stated I might look at it totally different than juror number one would look at it... The questions by the jury did not constitute an inquiry into the results should it fail to reach unanimity. Instead, it appears that during their course of deliberations, the jurors noticed the inconsistency in the trial court\u2019s proper instructions and the printed Issues and Recommendation as to Punishment form; the form can be read as requiring that if a single juror disagrees with the other eleven, Issue Three must be answered \u201cno.\u201d The jury merely sought guidance as to the procedure for giving an answer to Issue Three. The jury did not ask what would happen if it could not come to a unanimous decision.\nBecause the jury did not inquire into the result should it not be able to come to a unanimous decision, the Smith instruction was not warranted. Therefore, defendant\u2019s assignment of error is without merit.\nIn his next assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to give peremptory instructions on those mitigating circumstances for which the factual predicate was uncontroverted.\nThe trial court instructed the jury on each nonstatutory mitigating circumstance as follows:\nIf any one or more of you find by a preponderance of the evidence that this circumstance exists, and also is deemed mitigating, you would so indicate by having your foreman write, \u201cYes,\u201d in the space provided after this mitigating circumstance on the form. If none of you find the circumstance to exist, or if none of you deem it to have mitigating value, you would so indicate by having your foreman write, \u201cNo,\u201d in that space.\nDuring the charge conference, defendant specifically requested that North Carolina Pattern Instruction 150.11 be read to the jury. In part, it reads:\n[A]s to this mitigating circumstance, I charge you that if one or more of you finds the facts to be as all the evidence tends to show, you will answer \u201cYes\u201d as to Mitigating Circumstance Number (read number) on the \u201cIssues and Recommendation\u201d form.\nN.C.P.I. \u2014 Crim. 150.11 (1991).\nDefendant\u2019s proposed instruction would not have been a proper peremptory instruction in the context of this case. In Green, 336 N.C. 142, 443 S.E.2d 14, this Court held that N.C.P.I. \u2014 Crim. 150.11 is not a proper peremptory instruction to be used with regard to a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance. We said that\nbefore a juror \u201cfinds\u201d a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance, he or she must make two preliminary determinations: (1) that the evidence supports the factual existence of the circumstance, and (2) that the juror deems the particular circumstance to have mitigating value in the case in question.\nId. at 174, 443 S.E.2d at 33. The instructions actually given in the present case conform to the requirements of Green. Therefore, we find that defendant\u2019s assignment of error is without merit.\nIn his next assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant\u2019s expert about the results of a personality test upon which she did not rely and in requiring defendant to disclose the results of the test. Pursuant to the State\u2019s request for discovery, the court ordered defendant to produce any and all results of physical and mental examinations in defendant\u2019s possession. Defendant specifically objected to the production of individual answers to one test in particular, the Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory Test (MMPI), because defendant did not complete the test and did not intend to introduce its results. Moreover, defendant contends that his expert did not rely on the test in forming her expert opinion on defendant\u2019s psychological makeup. Defendant\u2019s expert, Dr. Sultan, testified that defendant \u201cwasn\u2019t able to perform at a level that was scorable, and so no interpretation of that test is possible . ...\u201d Dr. Sultan went on to say that \u201c[n]o interpretation beyond the fact that it is not scorable is appropriate. And that is the interpretation of every psychologist who has administered it to him.\u201d\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-905, which governs the State\u2019s right to pretrial discovery in criminal cases, provides that in certain situations the State must be permitted to inspect and copy\nresults or reports of physical or mental examinations or of tests, measurements or experiments made in connection with the case . . . which the defendant intends to introduce in evidence at the trial or which were prepared by a witness whom the defendant intends to call at the trial, when the results or reports relate to his testimony.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-905(b) (1988). The issue in the present case is not whether this particular test was scorable, but whether the expert gleaned any information from the test, its answers, or even defendant\u2019s inability to complete a scorable test which related to the expert\u2019s testimony. If so, the test is both discoverable and a proper subject for cross-examination.\nAlthough defendant\u2019s expert did not score or interpret the entire test, her testimony reveals that she considered the answers he gave and his inability to complete the test in formulating her final opinion of defendant. During direct examination, Dr. Sultan testified that defendant could not complete the test because it was \u201cbeyond his intellectual capacity.\u201d However, she then stated she was able to derive \u201csome primitive kinds of information\u201d about some \u201cfundamental\u201d information concerning defendant\u2019s personality. At this point in her testimony, she was referring to.the MMPI and defendant\u2019s inability to comprehend the test. Yet, even though the test itself could not be scored, she did derive some \u201cprimitive\u201d and \u201cfundamental\u201d information from it which went into the formation of her opinions. Consequently, the State was entitled to inspect and copy the test, which provided her with some \u201craw data,\u201d and to cross-examine her on that subject. This assignment of error is without merit.\nIn another assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing defense counsel to withdraw a request to submit the statutory mitigating circumstance that defendant had no significant history of prior criminal activity, a circumstance defendant contends was supported by the evidence. Defendant initially requested the submission of this statutory mitigating circumstance; however, after the trial court questioned the wisdom of defendant\u2019s request, defendant withdrew it. Defendant now asserts that the trial court should have submitted the circumstance because the evidence would support a rational jury\u2019s finding that defendant did not have a significant history of prior criminal acts.\nWhether defendant requested submission of the statutory mitigating circumstance does not concern us here. A \u201ctrial court has no discretion as to whether to submit statutory mitigating circumstances when evidence is presented in a capital case which may support a statutory circumstance.\u201d State v. Skipper, 337 N.C. 1, 44, 446 S.E.2d 252, 276 (1994), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 L. Ed. 2d 895 (1995). The trial court must submit the circumstance if it is supported by substantial evidence. The trial court is required \u201cto determine whether a rational jury could conclude that defendant had no significant history of prior criminal activity.\u201d State v. Wilson, 322 N.C. 117, 143, 367 S.E.2d 589, 604 (1988) (emphasis added).\nIn the present case, evidence tended to show that defendant had been convicted on 1 May 1981 of three counts of worthless checks. He had also been convicted on 1 March 1984 of eight counts of felonious larceny and one count of forgery. Further, at the age of four years, he and his brother were being hoisted into open windows by their parents to assist in the parents\u2019 burglary enterprise. After their parents were sent to prison, defendant and his brother, while living with their grandmother, began to steal to provide for their own subsistence. Defendant also contended that he abused drugs. Shortly before defendant murdered the victim in this case, he talked to a coworker about his plan to write worthless checks for gold, which, in turn, he would pawn for cash.\nWe have previously held that similar histories barred the submission of \u201cno significant history of prior criminal activity\u201d as a mitigating circumstance. See State v. Jones, 336 N.C. 229, 247, 443 S.E.2d 48, 56-57 (1994) (defendant used illegal drugs, broke into a convenience store six or seven times, and broke into a pawn shop and stole guns), cert. denied, - U.S. \u2014, 130 L. Ed. 2d 423 (1994), reh\u2019g denied, - U.S. -, 130 L. Ed. 2d 676 (1995); State v. Robinson, 336 N.C. 78, 119, 443 S.E.2d 306, 326 (1994) (defendant used and dealt drugs, had pled guilty to a robbery, carried a pistol, and used another man\u2019s driver\u2019s license as identification), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 130 L. Ed. 2d 650 (1995); State v. Stokes, 308 N.C. 634, 653-54, 304 S.E.2d 184, 196 (1983) (defendant engaged in five incidents of theft and possessed, used, and sold marijuana). Therefore, we conclude that the statutory mitigating circumstance of \u201cno significant history of prior criminal activity\u201d should not have been submitted in this case. Defendant\u2019s assignment of error is overruled.\nBy another assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the submission of the aggravating circumstance that the murder was committed to avoid a lawful arrest. Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the submission of this aggravating circumstance to the jury. We disagree.\nThe jury in a capital sentencing hearing is allowed to consider as an aggravating circumstance that \u201c[t]he capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(e)(4). Submission of the aggravating circumstance that the capital felony was committed to avoid or prevent a lawful arrest has been upheld in circumstances where a murder was committed to prevent the victim from capturing defendant and where a purpose of the killing was to eliminate a witness. State v. Green, 321 N.C. 594, 365 S.E.2d 587, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 900, 102 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1988).\nIn this case, the evidence tends to show that defendant robbed Mr. Hartley and killed him because defendant believed the victim would testify against him. Prior to the murder, defendant told Tony Jackson and David Shearin that he planned to rob an old man in a cafeteria in Concord\u2019s Carolina Mall who had testified against him on a prior occasion. Jackson testified that defendant said if Mr. Hartley saw him, defendant would have to kill Mr. Hartley because he had testified against defendant before and was certain to do so again. After the murder, defendant told Jackson that he stabbed Hartley because \u201che had testified against him and sent him to prison before.\u201d\nThe evidence was sufficient to support a rational jury\u2019s finding that one of defendant\u2019s purposes for the murder was the desire to eliminate a witness who defendant felt would testify against him. Therefore, the trial court properly submitted this aggravating circumstance in the defendant\u2019s capital sentencing proceeding.\nDefendant also argues that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury regarding this aggravating circumstance. The trial court instructed the jury with respect to this circumstance as follows:\nNow, a murder is committed for such purpose if the defendant\u2019s purpose at the time he kills is, by that killing, to avoid the arrest of himself or some other person and that arrest would have been lawful.\nIf you find from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that when the defendant killed the victim, it was in fact his purpose to avoid his arrest and that such arrest would have been lawful, you would find this aggravating circumstance ....\nDefendant contends this instruction did not adequately define the circumstance or guide the jury in its evaluation of the evidence.\nThe record shows that defendant did not object to the instructions or request more specific instructions. This assignment of error is therefore barred by Rule 10(b)(2) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, and defendant is not entitled to relief unless any error constituted plain error. See State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 659-60, 300 S.E.2d 375, 378. To rise to a level of plain error, the error in the instructions must be \u201cso fundamental that it denied the defendant a fair trial and quite probably tilted the scales against him.\u201d State v. Collins, 334 N.C. 54, 62, 431 S.E.2d 188, 193 (1993). In other words, the error must be one \u201cso fundamental as to amount to a miscarriage of justice or which probably resulted in the jury reaching a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached.\u201d State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201, 213, 362 S.E.2d 244, 251 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1036, 99 L. Ed. 2d 912 (1988).\nHaving reviewed the trial court\u2019s instructions on the aggravating circumstance at issue, we find no plain error. The instructions given were of sufficient particularity to enable the jury to understand the law and apply it to the evidence presented. No more was required of the trial court. We therefore cannot say that the trial court committed plain error. This assignment of error is without merit.\nDefendant next contends that the aggravating circumstance set out in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(e)(4) is overly broad and, therefore, unconstitutional. Defendant did not raise this issue in the trial court and therefore failed to preserve the question for appellate review. State v. Brown, 320 N.C. 179, 211, 358 S.E.2d 1, 23 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 970, 98 L. Ed. 2d 406 (1987). This assignment of error is overruled.\nBy another assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred by excluding testimony that maximum security inmates commonly had homemade knives or \u201cshanks\u201d in their cells and that this exclusion denied defendant a fair sentencing hearing. Dr. Sultan testified that defendant\u2019s prison record contained only one significant violation, which involved two such knives found in his locker by prison officials. Comparing defendant\u2019s record to that of other inmates, Dr. Sultan testified that defendant\u2019s infraction was \u201cvery unremarkable.\u201d Dr. Sultan also testified that defendant\u2019s violation was \u201cnot uncommon\u201d among inmates in maximum custody facilities. Later, defense counsel asked: \u201cIs it common for inmates in maximum security to have shanks?\u201d The State objected, and the trial court sustained the objection.\nDefendant argues the exclusion prevented the presentation of relevant mitigating evidence to the jury. We disagree. Assuming arguendo that Dr. Sultan\u2019s answer would have been relevant, she had already given testimony which answered that question. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by preventing defendant\u2019s question which called for repetitious testimony.\nIn his next assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jurors that \u201cpreponderance of the evidence,\u201d the burden of proof applicable to mitigating circumstances, means proof showing that it is more likely than not that a mitigating circumstance exists. The trial court instructed the jurors that they could find a mitigating circumstance if the evidence \u201csatisfies any one of you\u201d of its existence. Defendant contends that because the jury might have understood the term \u201csatisfies\u201d to mean a greater degree of proof than \u201cmore likely than not,\u201d the instruction was erroneous.\nDefendant did not object to the instruction at trial, so our review is limited to one for plain error. We have previously addressed this same issue in State v. Payne, 337 N.C. 505, 448 S.E.2d 93 (1994), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 131 L. Ed. 2d 292 (1995). There we held that the trial court\u2019s use of \u201csatisfy\u201d did not increase defendant\u2019s burden of proof. Id. Accordingly, we conclude there was no plain error and reject defendant\u2019s assignment of error.\nIn his next assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that it could refuse to consider mitigating evidence. In this case, the trial court told the jury to find and consider only the nonstatutory mitigating circumstances one or more jurors found to exist and to have mitigating value. A similar instruction was approved in Green, 336 N.C. 142, 443 S.E.2d 14, and we see no reason to overturn that decision now. Accordingly, we find no merit in defendant\u2019s assignment of error.\nIn another assignment of error, defendant asserts that the trial court committed reversible error in the capital sentencing proceeding by failing to instruct that the entire jury as a whole must consider and weigh any mitigating circumstance found by any juror in reaching its answers as to Issue Three and Issue Four. We have rejected this very argument in State v. Lee, 335 N.C. 244, 439 S.E.2d 547, cert. denied, - U.S. -, 130 L. Ed. 2d 162, reh\u2019g denied, - U.S. -, 130 L. Ed. 2d 532 (1994). This assignment of error is without merit.\nDefendant has also brought forward numerous other assignments of error presenting \u201cpreservation issues.\u201d As to each of these issues, defendant acknowledges with commendable candor that prior decisions of this Court require a ruling contrary to his contentions. He raises them for the purpose of permitting this Court to reexamine its prior holdings and also for the purpose of preserving these issues for any necessary federal habeas corpus review. Having carefully examined each of those assignments of error, we conclude that they are without merit.\nProportionality Review\nHaving concluded that defendant\u2019s capital sentencing proceeding was free from prejudicial error, we turn to the duties reserved by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(d)(2) exclusively for this Court in capital cases. See State v. Williams, 308 N.C. 47, 79, 301 S.E.2d 335, 354-55, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865, 78 L. Ed. 2d 177, reh\u2019g denied, 464 U.S. 1004, 78 L. Ed. 2d 704 (1983). It is our duty in this regard to ascertain (1) whether the record supports the jury\u2019s findings of the aggravating circumstances on which the sentence of death was based; (2) whether the death sentence was entered under the influence of passion, prejudice, or other arbitrary consideration; and (3) whether the death sentence is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant. Id.\nWe have thoroughly examined the record, transcripts, and briefs in the present case. We conclude that the record fully supports the aggravating circumstances found by the jury. Further, we find no indication that the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary consideration.\nWe turn now to our final statutory duty of proportionality review. In conducting proportionality review, \u201cwe determine whether the death sentence in this case is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering the crime and the defendant.\u201d Id.\nIn essence, our task on proportionality review is to compare the case at bar with other cases in the pool which are roughly similar with regard to the crime and the defendant, such as, for example, the manner in which the crime was committed and the defendant\u2019s character, background, and physical and mental condition.\nState v. Lawson, 310 N.C. 632, 648, 314 S.E.2d 493, 503 (1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1120, 86 L. Ed. 2d 267 (1985).\nIn the present case, defendant was convicted of first-degree murder (under theories of premeditation and deliberation and of felony murder) and of robbery with a dangerous weapon. The jury found the aggravating circumstances that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(e)(4), and that the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in the commission of a robbery with a dangerous weapon, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(e)(5).\nThe jury found as mitigating circumstances that (1) the offense was committed while defendant was under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(2); (2) the capacity of defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was impaired at the time of the offense, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(6); (3) defendant has a history of passive orientation and nonviolence; (4) defendant\u2019s intelligence quotient is in the lower range of borderline intellectual functioning, similar to that of a ten- to twelve-year-old; (5) defendant has been a good, dependable, hardworking employee; (6) defendant cooperated with law enforcement officers during his arrest and voluntarily gave a statement admitting his involvement and activity at an early stage of the criminal proceeding; (7) defendant does well in a structured setting and has done well in a structured setting; (8) defendant was and is emotionally neglected and has chronic feelings of deprivation, inadequacy, and anger and is uncomfortable and frightened by these feelings; (9) defendant suffers and has suffered from clinical depression throughout his life; (10) defendant was the victim of severe economic deprivation; (11) defendant was taught criminal behavior at a very early age by his parents and was forced by his parents to participate in criminal activity; (12) defendant was the victim of sexual abuse at a young age by an older male, which affected his feelings about men permanently; (13) defendant has been diagnosed as suffering from psychotic behavior; and (14) defendant has the capacity to love and loves his girlfriend, daughter, and brother.\nIn our proportionality review, we compare the present case with other cases in which this Court has ruled upon the proportionality issue. This case is not particularly similar to any case in which this Court has found the death penalty disproportionate and entered a sentence of life imprisonment. Each of those cases is distinguishable from the present case.\nIn State v. Benson, 323 N.C. 318, 372 S.E.2d 517 (1988), the evidence tended to show that the defendant hid in the bushes at a bank for about two hours waiting for the victim to make his nightly deposit. When the victim arrived at the bank, the defendant demanded the money bag. The victim hesitated, so the defendant fired a shotgun, striking him in the upper portion of both legs. The victim later died of cardiac arrest caused by the loss of blood from the shotgun wounds. The jury found only one aggravating circumstance \u2014 that the murder was committed for pecuniary gain. The defendant also pled guilty during the trial and acknowledged his wrongdoing before the jury.\nBenson is easily distinguishable from the present case. In Benson, unlike the present case, some evidence tended to show that the defendant did not intend to kill the victim because he shot the victim in the legs rather than a more vital part of his body. In the present case, defendant purposefully stabbed the victim in the chest and killed him. He had previously stated that if the victim saw him, he would have to kill the victim so that he would not testify against defendant again. Also, unlike the situation in Benson, the jury here found two aggravating circumstances.\nIn State v. Stokes, 319 N.C. 1, 352 S.E.2d 653 (1987), the defendant and several others planned to rob the victim\u2019s place of business. During the robbery, one of the assailants severely beat the victim, killing him. Stokes is also easily distinguishable from the present case because Stokes\u2019 codefendant, whom the majority of this Court seemed to believe equally culpable with Stokes, was sentenced to life imprisonment. In addition, the jury in Stokes found only one aggravating circumstance \u2014 that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel \u2014 while the jury here found two aggravating circumstances.\nIn State v. Rogers, 316 N.C. 203, 341 S.E.2d 713 (1986), overruled on other grounds by State v. Vandiver, 321 N.C. 570, 364 S.E.2d 373 (1988), the only aggravating circumstance found by the jury was that the murder for which Rogers was convicted was part of a course of conduct which included the commission of violence against another person or persons. In the present case, the jury found two aggravating circumstances \u2014 that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding lawful arrest and that the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in the commission of a robbery with a dangerous weapon.\nInState v. Young, 312 N.C. 669, 325 S.E.2d 181 (1985), the defendant and two companions went to the victim\u2019s home intending to rob and murder him. After gaining entry into the victim\u2019s home, the men killed the victim and stole his money. The jury found as aggravating circumstances that the murder was committed during the commission of a robbery or burglary and that it was committed for pecuniary gain. In Young, the jury did not find the aggravating circumstance of witness elimination, a circumstance found in the case sub judice. The finding of this circumstance distinguishes the two cases because witness elimination is an attack upon the judicial system itself.\nIn State v. Hill, 311 N.C. 465, 319 S.E.2d 163 (1984), the single aggravating circumstance found by the jury was that the murder was committed against a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties. Hill is easily distinguishable from this case in which defendant robbed and killed an elderly cafeteria worker with the additional aggravating circumstance of witness eradication.\nIn State v. Jackson, 309 N.C. 26, 305 S.E.2d 703 (1983), the defendant was on foot and waved down the victim as the victim passed in his truck. Shortly thereafter, the victim\u2019s body was discovered in his truck. He had been shot twice in the head, and his wallet was gone. The single aggravating circumstance found was that the murder was committed for pecuniary gain. In contrast, the jury here found that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding lawful arrest and that the murder was committed during the commission of a robbery with a dangerous weapon.\nIn State v. Bondurant, 309 N.C. 674, 309 S.E.2d 170 (1983), the evidence tended to show that the defendant and a group of friends were riding in a car when the defendant taunted the victim by telling him that he would shoot him and questioning whether the victim believed he would shoot him. The defendant shot the victim but then immediately directed the driver to proceed to the emergency room of the local hospital. In concluding that the death penalty was disproportionate there, we focused on the defendant\u2019s immediate attempt to obtain medical assistance for the victim and the lack of any apparent motive for the killing. In contrast, the jury in the present case found that defendant killed the victim to prevent him from testifying against him.\nIt bears noting that we have never found a death sentence to be disproportionate in witness-elimination cases. The reason is clear: \u201cMurder can be motivated by emotions such as greed, jealousy, hate, revenge, or passion. The motive of witness elimination lacks even the excuse of emotion.\u201d State v. Oliver, 309 N.C. 326, 375, 307 S.E.2d 304, 335 (1983). The murder in the present case was nothing but cold and calculated. The only reason the victim was killed was to prevent him from testifying against defendant. The purposeful and deliberate killing of witnesses or possible witnesses strikes a blow at the entire public \u2014 the body politic \u2014 and directly attacks our ability to apply the rule of law and to bear witness against the transgressors of law in our society. See Hill, 311 N.C. 465, 319 S.E.2d 163 (Mitchell, J., dissenting) (murder of law enforcement officer is attack on entire public).\nFor the foregoing reasons, we conclude that each of the cases in which we have found the death penalty to be disproportionate is distinguishable from the present case. The present case bears little similarity to any of those cases.\nIt is also proper for this Court to \u201ccompare this case with the cases in which we have found the death penalty to be proportionate.\u201d State v. McCollum, 334 N.C. 208, 244, 433 S.E.2d 144, 164 (1993), cert. denied, \u2014 U.S. -, 129 L. Ed. 2d 895, reh\u2019g denied, - U.S. -, 129 L. Ed. 2d 924 (1994). Although we review all of the cases in the pool when engaging in our statutorily mandated duty of proportionality review, we reemphasize here \u201cthat we will not undertake to discuss or cite all of those cases each time we carry out that duty.\u201d Id. \u201cThe Bar may safely assume that we are aware of our own opinions filed in capital cases arising since the effective date of our capital punishment statute, 1 June 1977.\u201d Williams, 308 N.C. at 81-82, 301 S.E.2d at 356. Here, it suffices to say that we conclude that the present case is more similar to certain cases in which we have found the sentence of death proportionate than to those in which we have found the sentence disproportionate or those in which juries have consistently returned recommendations of life imprisonment.\nIn performing our statutory duty of proportionality review, it is also appropriate for us to compare the case before us to all other cases in the pool used for proportionality review. Lawson, 310 N.C. at 648, 314 S.E.2d at 503. However, the factors to be considered and their relevance during proportionality review in a given capital case \u201cwill be as numerous and as varied as the cases coming before us on appeal.\u201d Williams, 308 N.C. at 80, 301 S.E.2d at 355. \u201cTherefore, the fact that in one or more cases factually similar to this case, a jury or juries have recommended life imprisonment is not determinative, standing alone, on the issue of whether the death penalty is disproportionate in the case under review.\u201d Green, 336 N.C. at 198, 443 S.E.2d at 47.\nEarly in the process of developing our methods for proportionality review, we indicated that similarity of cases, no matter how many factors are compared, will not be allowed to \u201cbecome the last word on the subject of proportionality rather than serving as an initial point of inquiry.\u201d Williams, 308 N.C. at 80-81, 301 S.E.2d at 356. Instead, we have held \u201cthat the constitutional requirement of \u2018individualized consideration\u2019 as to proportionality could only be served if the issue of whether the death penalty was disproportionate in a particular case ultimately rested upon the \u2018experienced judgments\u2019 of the members of this Court, rather than upon mere numerical comparisons of aggravators, mitigators, and other circumstances.\u201d State v. Keel, 337 N.C. 469, 502, 447 S.E.2d 748, 767 (1994), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 131 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1995). Also, \u201cthe fact that one, two, or several juries have returned recommendations of life imprisonment in cases similar to the one under review does not automatically establish that juries have \u2018consistently\u2019 returned life sentences in factually similar cases.\u201d Green, 336 N.C. at 198, 443 S.E.2d at 47.\nDefendant here has cited a number of cases involving murders committed in the course of robberies. It suffices to say that we have examined all of the numerous cases cited by defendant. Where defendants have killed their victims as part of a planned witness elimination, some defendants have received life imprisonment and others have been sentenced to death. This murder was committed in the course of a robbery; equally important, it was a murder to eliminate a possible witness. In State v. Robinson, 339 N.C. 263, 451 S.E.2d 196 (1994), cert. denied, - U.S. -,- L. Ed. 2d -, 63 U.S.L.W. 3873 (1995); State v. Sexton, 336 N.C. 321, 444 S.E.2d 879, cert. denied, - U.S. \u2014, 130 L. Ed. 2d 429 (1994); McCollum, 334 N.C. 208, 433 S.E.2d 144; State v. Hunt, 323 N.C. 407, 373 S.E.2d 400 (1988), sentence vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1022, 108 L. Ed. 2d 602 (1990), on remand, 330 N.C. 501, 411 S.E.2d 806, cert, denied, -- U.S. -, 120 L. Ed. 2d 913 (1992); State v. Maynard, 311 N.C. 1, 316 S.E.2d 197, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 963, 83 L. Ed. 2d 299 (1984); Lawson, 310 N.C. 632, 314 S.E.2d 493; and State v. Barfield, 298 N.C. 306, 259 S.E.2d 510 (1979), cert. denied, 448 U.S. 907, 65 L. Ed. 2d 1137, reh\u2019g denied, 448 U.S. 918, 65 L. Ed. 2d 1181 (1980), juries imposed death penalties in cases involving witness elimination. We cannot say that juries have consistently recommended life sentences in cases similar to the present case.\nAll of the evidence presented in the present case was to the effect that defendant planned and executed the robbery and murder of the seventy-one-year-old victim, Mr. Hartley, who had befriended defendant when defendant worked at the K&W Cafeteria. Defendant killed the victim so that the victim could not testify against him. All things considered, we do not find that this case presents any serious proportionality question. After comparing this case carefully with all others in the pool of \u201csimilar cases\u201d used for proportionality review, we conclude that it falls within the class of first-degree murders for which we have previously upheld the death penalty. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the sentence of death entered in the present case is not disproportionate.\nHaving considered and rejected all of defendant\u2019s assigned errors, we hold that defendant\u2019s trial and capital sentencing proceeding were free of prejudicial error. Therefore, the sentence of death entered against defendant must be and is left undisturbed.\nNO ERROR.\n. Issue Two addresses mitigating circumstances and, whether answered \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno,\u201d is not determinative of the outcome \u2014 death or life imprisonment. Under the original capital sentencing scheme of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000, this Court had required the jury to be unanimous to find any mitigating circumstances. That requirement was found unconstitutional in McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 108 L. Ed. 2d 369 (1990), solely as it applied to mitigating circumstances.", "type": "majority", "author": "MITCHELL, Chief Justice." }, { "text": "Justice Frye\nconcurring in part and dissenting in part.\nI concur in the Court\u2019s decision finding no prejudicial error in defendant\u2019s trial and conviction of first-degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon. I dissent only as to the capital sentencing proceeding.\nI find nothing in the North Carolina Constitution or in our death penalty statute requiring a jury in a capital sentencing proceeding to be unanimous in order to give a negative answer to an issue requiring a positive finding as a prerequisite to a recommendation that a person be sentenced to death. This is the effect of the majority\u2019s holding as to the first issue in the capital sentencing proceeding. I therefore dissent as to this issue.\nThe majority first relies upon Article I, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution for the proposition that any jury recommendation requiring a sentence of death or life imprisonment must be unanimous. This section simply says that:\nNo person shall be convicted of any crime but by a unanimous verdict of a jury in open court. The General Assembly may, however, provide for other means of trial for misdemeanors, with the right of appeal for trial de novo.\nN.C. Const, art. I, \u00a7 24. This section requires a unanimous verdict of a jury in open court in order to convict a person of a crime. In this case, as in all capital cases in North Carolina, we do not get to a capital sentencing proceeding until after a jury has convicted the defendant of the capital crime by a unanimous verdict in open court. The majority\u2019s proposition relates to any sentencing recommendation, not a conviction. Thus, I do not find the majority\u2019s conclusion to be supported by Article I, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution.\nThe majority cites N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b) in support of the same proposition. Note, however, that the proposition is stated in terms of any jury recommendation. The recommendation can be one of only two sentences: life imprisonment or death. Under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b), the jury must hear the evidence, arguments of counsel, and instructions of the court before deliberating and delivering a sentence recommendation to the court. This sentence recommendation (life imprisonment or death) must be based upon the jury\u2019s consideration of:\n(1) Whether any sufficient aggravating circumstance or circumstances as enumerated in subsection (e) exists; [and]\n(2) Whether any sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances as enumerated in subsection (f), which outweigh the aggravating circumstance or circumstances found, exists[.]\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b) (Supp. 1994). Thus, under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b), before the jury may recommend, it must first consider whether any enumerated sufficient aggravating circumstances exist, whether any enumerated sufficient mitigating circumstances exist, and whether those mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances.\nIn order to facilitate the jury\u2019s consideration of the matters mandated by the statute, the court gives the jury four issues to answer. In order to facilitate the jury\u2019s recommendation, the court gives the jury one question to answer. For convenience, and to assist the jury in understanding and following the court\u2019s instructions, the court gives the jury a form to take into the jury room. It is labeled: Issues and Recommendation as to Punishment.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b) says that \u201c[t]he sentence recommendation must be agreed upon by a unanimous vote of the 12 jurors. Upon delivery of the sentence recommendation by the foreman of the jury, the jury shall be individually polled to establish whether each juror concurs and agrees to the sentence recommendation returned.\u201d Note again that the language of the statute is that the \u201csentence recommendation\u201d must be unanimous. There is no express provision in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b) requiring unanimity as to the jury\u2019s consideration of matters leading to its recommendation.\nThe majority next relies on a quote from Justice Kennedy\u2019s concurring opinion in McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 108 L. Ed. 2d 369 (1990). In McKoy, the United States Supreme Court held that North Carolina\u2019s capital sentencing scheme\u2019s unanimity requirement as to mitigating circumstances \u201cviolates the Constitution by preventing the sentencer from considering all mitigating evidence.\u201d Id. at 435, 108 L. Ed. 2d at 376. Concurring in the judgment, Justice Kennedy said:\nJury unanimity, it is true, is an accepted, vital mechanism to ensure that real and full deliberation occurs in the jury room, and that the jury\u2019s ultimate decision will reflect the conscience of the community. Yet the unique interaction of the elements of the sentencing statute in issue here can allow the same requirement of unanimity to produce a capital sentence that lacks unanimous support of the jurors, and, more than this, is thought to be inappropriate by 11 of the 12.\nId. at 452, 108 L. Ed. 2d at 387. The second sentence of Justice Kennedy\u2019s concurring opinion makes it clear that, at least in some circumstances, requiring unanimity as to one of the issues the jury must consider in making a sentencing recommendation may result in a capital sentence thought to be inappropriate by some, if not most, of the jurors. Thus, I do not believe that, even if Justice Kennedy had spoken for a majority of the Supreme Court, his views would support the majority\u2019s rule set forth in this case that the jury must be unanimous to answer \u201cno\u201d to Issue Three-\nThe majority\u2019s ultimate rationale for requiring the jury to be unanimous to give a negative answer to Issue Three is that this requirement prevents the jury from evading its duty to make a sentence recommendation. I do not accept this rationale, and I find nothing in our Constitution, our capital sentencing statute, or our cases to support it. The cases cited by the majority require unanimity in the jury\u2019s recommendation as to sentence, and I agree with the rationale of those cases. However, they are not controlling on the question here which relates to an issue the jury must answer before making a recommendation as to sentence. I now consider defendant\u2019s argument.\nFor his first assignment of error in the sentencing phase of his trial, defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in giving an erroneous answer to a question by the jury and then refusing to instruct the jury that it did not need to be unanimous in order to give a negative answer to Issue Three on the written Issues and Recommendation as to Punishment form. I agree.\nUnder subsection (c) of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000, if the jury recommends a sentence of death, the jury foreman is required to sign a writing on behalf of the jury setting out specific findings in support of the jury\u2019s recommendation. Subsection (c) provides:\n(c) Findings in Support of Sentence of Death. \u2014 When the jury recommends a sentence of death, the foreman of the jury shall sign a writing on behalf of the jury which writing shall show:\n(1) The statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances which the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt; and\n(2) That the statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances found by the jury are sufficiently substantial to call for the imposition of the death penalty; and,\n(3) That the mitigating circumstance or circumstances are insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstance or circumstances found.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(c) (Supp. 1994).\nThe language of this subsection is mandatory: \u201cthe foreman . . . shall sign a writing on behalf of the jury which writing shall show\u201d the three requirements set out in this subsection. Id. (emphasis added). If the writing does not show that these requirements have been met, the jury may not recommend, and the judge may not impose, a sentence of death. Thus, unanimity is required in order for the jury to find the statutory requisites to the recommendation of a sentence of death, and unanimity is required for the recommendation itself. In short, while N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b) requires the jury recommendation to be unanimous, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(c) requires that both the jury\u2019s recommendation of death and the findings in support thereof be unanimous.\nIn compliance with subsection (c) of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000, Issue Three on the written Issues and Recommendation as to Punishment form submitted to the jury in this case was as follows:\nDo you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the mitigating circumstance or circumstances found by one or more of you is, or are, insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstance or circumstances found unanimously by you in Issue One?\nThe trial court correctly instructed the jury:\nIf you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt \u2014 you\u2019ll notice, unanimously, twelve person decision \u2014 If you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the mitigating circumstances found are insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances found, you would answer Issue Number Three, \u201cYes.\u201d If you do not so find, or have a reasonable doubt as to whether they do, you would answer Issue Number Three, \u201cNo. \u201d\n(Emphasis added.)\nAfter several hours of deliberation, the jury sent a question to the judge regarding Issue Number Three. The question read: \u201cMust there be twelve votes, \u2018Yes,\u2019 or twelve votes, \u2018No,\u2019 to reach a unanimous decision?\u201d After conferring with the parties, the judge had the jury return to the courtroom, and the following colloquy occurred between the judge and the foreman of the jury:\nThe Court: The answer to that is, Yes, it must be a unanimous twelve person decision as to any answer you reach to that issue, whether it be Yes or whether it be No. It must be a unanimous twelve person decision.\nDoes that answer your question?\nJuror Basinger: Yes, sir.\nOne more question, if I may ask. If there is not a unanimous decision, what steps are taken then as to the paper? Unless I\u2019m reading it wrong \u2014 the reason that I\u2019m asking because the way that the question is stated I might look at it totally different than juror number one would look at it and that\u2019s the reason we came out to ask because we want to be sure of what we were reading.\nThe Court: Well, the answer is that it must be unanimous twelve person decision. If what you\u2019re saying is \u2014 you understand that it can\u2019t be a majority vote, it must be a unanimous twelve person decision. So I\u2019m going to ask you to continue deliberations with that instruction in mind. Does that answer your question?\nJuror Basinger: Yes, sir.\nThe Court: If you\u2019ll step back there and keep trying, please.\nAfter the jury resumed deliberations and the court adjourned awaiting the jury verdict, defendant objected to the judge\u2019s instruction and indicated that if all the jurors do not agree on the answer to Issue Three, then the answer to that question is \u201cNo.\u201d Thus, a unanimous decision is not required to answer \u201cno\u201d to Issue Three. The colloquy continued:\nThe Court: The State need to respond to that?\nMr. Kenerly: Your Honor, I think it\u2019s just a question of syntax. It\u2019s an awkwardly worded question. But if they\u2019re not unanimous then we would just say that they cannot answer that question, but not that they would answer it, No. They can only answer it Yes or No if they\u2019re unanimous in whichever way they decide.\nMr. Russell: Your Honor, if that was the case, we could just strike the word \u201cunanimous\u201d from Issue Three.\nYour Honor, I know it\u2019s kind of convoluted but in more simple terms if they do not all agree, then they do not find Issue Number Three. If they do not all agree, they cannot answer Yes to Issue Number Three. But they don\u2019t all have to agree, No.\nI believe that the foreman asked a follow-up question, what happens if we all do not agree or all cannot agree? I think that therein lies the answer. The answer is that if you don\u2019t agree unanimously, then the answer to the question is No.\nThe Court: That is a very interesting argument and I certainly see the logic in it, but I don\u2019t believe that\u2019s a correct statement of the law as it now exists. So until I see some definitive direction from a higher court, I would feel compelled to deny that motion or that request. I\u2019ll certainly note that objection for the record.\nI believe that defendant\u2019s attorney correctly stated the law when he told the judge, \u201cif they do not all agree, then they do not find Issue Number Three. If they do not all agree, they cannot answer Yes to Issue Number Three. But they don\u2019t all have to agree, No.\u201d Defendant\u2019s position is consistent with N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b) and (c), the court\u2019s initial instruction in this case, and the instructions on the Issues and Recommendation as to Punishment form. Furthermore, defendant\u2019s position is not inconsistent with the federal or state constitutions, or any decision of this Court that I have been able to find.\nThe State contends that the question in this case is controlled by State v. Green, 336 N.C. 142, 443 S.E.2d 14 (1994). I find that Green is distinguishable from the instant case. In Green, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder of two persons. Aft\u00e9r deliberations, the jury asked: \u201cDoes [the jury] decision have to be unanimous on both recommendations?\u201d Id. at 176, 443 S.E.2d at 35. This Court held that \u201c[t]he trial court correctly informed [the] jury that any recommendation [it] made as to sentencing must be unanimous.\u201d Id. at 178, 443 S.E.2d at 35 (emphasis added). In Green, the jury was questioning whether it would have to be unanimous in its sentencing recommendations on each of the two murder charges. The correct answer was \u201cyes\u201d; the jury must be unanimous in its sentencing recommendation of life or death. However, the question in this case was not whether the sentencing recommendation must be unanimous but whether the jury must be unanimous in order to give a negative answer to Issue Three, an intermediate step the jury must take prior to reaching a unanimous sentencing recommendation. Accordingly, this case is not controlled by Green.\nIf the jury does not unanimously agree that the mitigating circumstances are insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances, or if any member of the jury has a reasonable doubt as to whether the mitigating circumstances are insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances found by the jury, the answer to Issue Three is \u201cno.\u201d To put it simply, the jury must be unanimous to answer Issue Three \u201cyes, \u201d but unanimity is not required to answer \u201cno.\u201d \u201cIf the jury cannot, within a reasonable time, unanimously agree to its sentencing recommendation, the judge shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment; provided, however, that the judge shall in no instance impose the death penalty when the jury cannot agree unanimously to its sentence recommendation.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b).\nIn this case, the jury was given two alternative instructions upon which to base its decision: the initial correct instruction required the jury to be unanimous in order to find that the mitigating circumstances were insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances, while the subsequent instruction erroneously required the jury to be unanimous in order to answer the question in the negative. When a jury is given two alternative instructions upon which to base its decision, one of which is improper, the matter must be remanded for a new proceeding. See State v. Pakulski, 319 N.C. 562, 574, 356 S.E.2d 319, 326 (1987). This result is required because the appellate court cannot determine upon which instruction the jury relied in reaching its decision and, therefore, assumes the jury relied on the erroneous, improper instruction. Id. This Court is \u201cnot at liberty to\u201d assume upon which instructions defendant\u2019s sentencing jury relied. State v. Belton, 318 N.C. 141, 162, 347 S.E.2d 755, 768 (1986). \u201c[T]he Court [construes] the ambiguity in favor of defendant.\u201d Id. This is especially true where, as here, the erroneous instruction is given in response to a question, from the jury, which indicates that the answer to the question may determine whether defendant is sentenced to life imprisonment or death. Since the jury may have relied on the erroneous instruction to make its recommendation of a sentence of death, I cannot find the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. I would thus find the error prejudicial, vacate defendant\u2019s sentence of death, and remand the case to Superior Court, Cabarrus County, for a new capital sentencing proceeding in accord with N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000.\nJustice WHICHARD joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.\n. The majority also seems to decide that the jury must be unanimous in order to answer \u201cno\u201d to Issues One and Pour. As to Issue One, the majority\u2019s decision seems contra to (1) State v. Kirkley, 308 N.C. 196, 219, 302 S.E.2d 144, 157 (1983) (\u201cThe unanimity requirement is only placed upon the finding of whether an aggravating . . . circumstance exists.\u201d); (2) the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instruction, N.C.P.I. \u2014 Crim. 150.10 (1990) (\u201cIf you do not unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that one of these facts existed, you would answer Issue One-A \u2018No[.]\u2019 \u201d); and (3) Justice Meyer\u2019s dissenting opinion in State v. Hightower, 331 N.C. 636, 648, 417 S.E.2d 237, 244 (1992) (Meyer, J., dissenting) (\u201cI conclude that defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing based on the trial court\u2019s erroneous instruction that the jury could not reject the sole aggravating circumstance submitted unless the jurors unanimously agreed that the evidence presented did not prove the existence of the aggravating circumstance.\u201d). .", "type": "concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part", "author": "Justice Frye" } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Charles M. Hensey, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.", "Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by Gordon Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERNEST PAUL McCARVER\nNo. 384A92\n(Filed 8 September 1995)\n1. Jury \u00a7\u00a7 119, 145 (NCI4th)\u2014 capital trial \u2014 jury selection\u2014 views about psychological testimony \u2014 exclusion of question \u2014 peremptory challenge \u2014 absence of prejudice \u2014 questioning of other jurors not chilled\nDefendant was not prejudiced when the trial court sustained the State\u2019s objection to defense counsel\u2019s question to a prospective juror in a capital trial as to whether he could consider psychological testimony as mitigating where defendant peremptorily challenged the juror and did not exhaust his peremptory challenges. Moreover, the trial court\u2019s ruling did not chill defendant\u2019s subsequent inquiry as to jurors\u2019 attitudes about psychological testimony where the record indicates that defendant was permitted to question at least five other potential jurors about psychological evidence, and four of the five jurors were questioned after defendant used his peremptory challenge to excuse this juror.\nAm Jur 2d, Jury \u00a7\u00a7 199, 210.\nPropriety and effect of asking prospective jurors hypothetical questions, on voir dire, as to how they would decide issues of case. 99 ALR2d 7.\nEffect of accused\u2019s federal constitutional rights on scope of voir dire examination of prospective jurors\u2014 Supreme Court cases. 114 L. Ed. 2d 763.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 343 (NCI4th)\u2014 capital trial \u2014 special venire \u2014 excusal and deferral of jurors by district court\u2014 no right to presence by defendant\nDefendant\u2019s constitutional and statutory rights were not violated when a district court judge excused and deferred persons selected for a special venire chosen specifically for defendant\u2019s capital trial outside the presence of defendant and his counsel since the pretrial screening process delegated to the district court by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 9-6(b) is not a part of the capital trial, and defendant\u2019s capital trial had not commenced and his unwaivable right to be present had not attached at the time the district court excused and deferred the prospective jurors.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 695, 914.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 456 (NCI4th); Jury \u00a7 64 (NCI4th)\u2014 capital trial \u2014 informing jury of previous trial \u2014 no denial of fair trial\nThe prosecutor\u2019s statement during the jury selection process in a capital trial that \u201cthere has been a previous trial of this matter\u201d did not tend to diminish the jurors\u2019 sense of responsibility for their verdict by suggesting that the verdict might be reviewed and thus did not deny defendant his right to a fair trial where the prosecutor\u2019s statement was made without elaboration as to how the new trial came about and with no comment on the result of the prior trial.\nAm Jur 2d, Jury \u00a7 280; Trial \u00a7 574.\nSupreme Court\u2019s views as to what courtroom statements made by prosecuting attorney during criminal trial violate due process or constitute denial of fair trial. 40 L. Ed. 2d 886.\n4. Jury \u00a7 36 (NCI4th)\u2014 capital trial \u2014 rescission of order for special venire \u2014 no denial of constitutional or statutory rights\nThe trial court\u2019s rescission of its prior order which required that a special venire be summoned in Mecklenburg County to try defendant\u2019s capital case did not violate defendant\u2019s constitutional rights to a fair trial, due process and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment or his statutory right to a complete recordation of the proceedings in a capital case where the court rescinded its order because administrative support and physical facilities were not available in Mecklenburg County due to the trial of another capital case; defendant did not have an unwaivable right of presence at the jury selection proceedings which took place prior to his case being called for trial; and there is no indication that defendant ever requested that pretrial matters be recorded.\nAm Jur 2d, Jury \u00a7 113.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 113 (NCI4th)\u2014 violation of discovery order \u2014 denial of mistrial, new capital sentencing hearing\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant\u2019s motion for a mistrial in his first-degree murder trial based on the State\u2019s violation of a discovery order by failing to furnish to defendant a written statement from defendant\u2019s brother to a police officer that related to defendant\u2019s belief that the victim was responsible for defendant\u2019s parole being revoked where the prosecutor discovered the existence of the statement only a day before seeking to use it at defendant\u2019s capital sentencing hearing, since the prosecution\u2019s conduct did not amount to such a serious impropriety as to make it impossible for defendant to receive a fair and impartial verdict. Furthermore, the trial court did not err in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion for a new capital sentencing hearing because the prosecutor asked defendant\u2019s brother about the statement during cross-examination at the sentencing hearing where the trial court sustained defendant\u2019s objection and instructed the jury to disregard any reference to the statement.\nAm Jur 2d, Depositions and Discovery \u00a7\u00a7 426, 427.\nExclusion of evidence in state criminal action for failure of prosecution to comply with discovery requirements as to statements made by defendants or other nonexpert witnesses \u2014 modern cases. 33 ALR4th 301.\n6. Constitutional Law \u00a7 313 (NCI4th)\u2014 no impasse between defendant and counsel \u2014 no tactical decisions contrary to defendant\u2019s wishes\nThe record in this capital trial does not show \u201can absolute impasse\u201d between defendant and his defense team concerning trial tactics and that the trial court allowed defense counsel to make important tactical decisions that were contrary to defendant\u2019s wishes where defendant asked to speak to the court outside the presence of the jury; defendant then consulted privately with defense counsel, who thereafter stated that defendant \u201cwill not speak\u201d; defense counsel then indicated that defendant\u2019s mental state was such that counsel was concerned that defendant might walk out of the proceeding and delay its progression; defense counsel informed the court that counsel \u201cwill not let [defendant] run this case\u201d and that defendant \u201cdoes not control the defense, he can make suggestions\u201d; and at no time did defendant voice any complaints to the trial court as to the tactics of his defense counsel.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 752, 985-987.\n7. Criminal Law \u00a7 793 (NCI4th); Homicide \u00a7 583 (NCI4th)\u2014 instructions \u2014 acting in concert \u2014 mens rea\nThe trial court\u2019s instructions in a first-degree murder case did not allow the jury to apply the principle of acting in concert to convict defendant of specific intent crimes, including the underlying felony supporting felony murder, if it found that another perpetrator had the requisite mens rea to commit them. Rather, the instructions as a whole made it clear that defendant could have acted either alone or with another to commit the felony and that, in order to convict defendant, defendant himself must have had the requisite mens rea.\nAm Jur 2d, Homicide \u00a7 507; Trial \u00a7 1255.\n8. Homicide \u00a7 493 (NCI4th)\u2014 instructions \u2014 premeditation and deliberation \u2014 inference from lack of provocation \u2014 no expression of opinion \u2014 supporting evidence\nThe trial court\u2019s instruction that premeditation and deliberation may be inferred from a lack of provocation did not constitute an improper expression of opinion that the absence of provocation had been proven. Furthermore, this instruction was supported by the evidence tending to show that the victim was going about his ordinary duties at a cafeteria when he was accosted by defendant and his companion, grabbed by the neck, choked, thrown to the floor, and then stabbed to death.\nAm Jur 2d, Homicide \u00a7 501.\nHomicide: presumption of deliberation or premeditation from the fact of killing. 86 ALR2d 656.\nHomicide: presumption of deliberation or premeditation from the circumstances attending the killing. 96 ALR2d 1435.\n9. Criminal Law \u00a7 1329 (NCI4th)\u2014 capital sentencing \u2014 outcome determinative issues \u2014 unanimous \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d answers\nAny issue which is outcome determinative as to the sentence a defendant in a capital trial will receive \u2014 whether death or life imprisonment \u2014 must be answered unanimously by the jury; that is, the jury should answer Issues One, Three, and Four on the standard form used in capital sentencing proceedings either unanimously \u201cyes\u201d or unanimously \u201cno.\u201d The requirement of jury unanimity for either \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d answers for Issues One, Three, and Four ensures that the jury properly fulfills its duty to deliberate genuinely for a reasonable period of time in its efforts to exercise guided discretion in reaching a unanimous sentencing recommendation, as required by the Constitution of North Carolina and by our death penalty statute. Therefore, the trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury to answer \u201cno\u201d to Issue Three, thus recommending a sentence of life imprisonment, if it could not unanimously agree as to whether the mitigators were sufficient to outweigh the aggravators and by orally informing the jury in response to its inquiry that it must be unanimous before answering either \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d to Issue Three.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7 609; Trial \u00a7\u00a7 1753, 1760.\nUnanimity as to punishment in criminal case where jury can recommend lesser penalty. 1 ALR3d 1461.\n10. Criminal Law \u00a7 1329 (NCI4tli)\u2014 capital sentencing \u2014 misleading issues form \u2014 harmless error\nAssuming that Issue Three on the form used in this capital sentencing proceeding and the trial court\u2019s initial instructions could be interpreted as improperly directing the jury to answer \u201cno\u201d to Issue Three if unable to reach unanimity, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because it was favorable to the defendant.\nAun Jur 2d, Appellate Review \u00a7 743; Criminal Law \u00a7 609; Trial \u00a7\u00a7 1753, 1760.\n11. Criminal Law \u00a7 1321 (NCI4th)\u2014 capital sentencing\u2014 inability to reach unanimous verdict \u2014 instruction not required\nQuestions by the jury after it had begun deliberations in a capital sentencing proceeding did not constitute an inquiry as to what the result would be if the jury failed to reach a unanimous decision but merely sought guidance as to the procedure for giving an answer to Issue Three because the printed Issues and Recommendation as to Punishment form could be read as requiring the jury to answer that issue \u201cno\u201d if a single juror disagreed with the other eleven. Therefore, the trial court was not required to instruct the jurors that their inability to reach a unanimous verdict should not be their concern but should simply be reported to the court.\nAm Jur 2d, Trial \u00a7\u00a7 1109, 1110, 1441 et seq.\n12. Criminal Law \u00a7 680 (NCI4th)\u2014 capital sentencing \u2014 non-statutory mitigating circumstances \u2014 peremptory instruction \u2014 pattern instruction inappropriate\nThe trial court did not err by refusing to give the peremptory instruction set forth in N.C.P.I. \u2014 Crim. 150.11 for nonstatutory mitigating circumstances for which the factual predicate was uncontroverted since this pattern instruction is inappropriate for nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. The instruction given by the trial court complied with the requirement that, in order for a juror to find a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance, the juror must determine not only that the evidence supports the factual basis for the circumstance but also that the circumstance has mitigating value.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 598, 599, 628.\n13. Criminal Law \u00a7 109 (NCI4th)\u2014 personality test \u2014 defendant\u2019s inability to complete \u2014 expert\u2019s mse in formulating opinion \u2014 discovery and cross-examination\nAlthough defendant\u2019s expert did not score a personality test administered to defendant or interpret the entire test because defendant wasn\u2019t able to perform at a level that was scorable, the State was entitled to pretrial discovery of the test and to cross-examine defendant\u2019s expert about the test where the expert considered the answers defendant gave on the test and his inability to complete the test in formulating her opinion on defendant\u2019s psychological makeup. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-905(b).\nAm Jur 2d, Depositions and Discovery \u00a7 466.\nRight of prosecution to pretrial discovery, inspection, and disclosure. 96 ALR2d 1224.\nRight of prosecution to discovery of case-related notes, statements, and reports \u2014 state cases. 23 ALR4th 799.\n14. Criminal Law \u00a7 1349 (NCI4th)\u2014 capital sentencing \u2014 statutory mitigating circumstance \u2014 request irrelevant\nWhether defendant requested the submission of a statutory mitigating circumstance in a capital sentencing proceeding is of no importance because the trial court must submit the circumstance if it is supported by substantial evidence.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 598, 599, 628.\n15. Criminal Law \u00a7 1355 (NCI4th)\u2014 capital sentencing \u2014 mitigating circumstance \u2014 no significant criminal history \u2014 submission not required\nThe trial court did not err by failing to submit the \u201cno significant history of prior criminal activity\u201d mitigating circumstance to the jury in a capital sentencing proceeding where the evidence tended to show that defendant had been convicted in 1981 of three counts of worthless checks and in 1984 of eight counts of felonious larceny and one count of forgery; at the age of four years, defendant and his brother were being hoisted into open windows by their parents to assist in the parents\u2019 burglary enterprise; after their parents were sent to prison, defendant and his brother, while living with their grandmother, began to steal to provide for their own subsistence; defendant contended that he abused drugs; and shortly before defendant murdered the victim in this case, he talked to a coworker about his plan to write worthless checks for gold which he would pawn for cash.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 598, 599, 628.\n16. Criminal Law \u00a7 1338 (NCI4th)\u2014 capital sentencing \u2014 aggravating circumstance \u2014 murder to avoid arrest \u2014 sufficient evidence\nThere was sufficient evidence in a capital sentencing proceeding to support the trial court\u2019s submission of the aggravating circumstance that the murder was committed to avoid a lawful arrest where the evidence showed that defendant robbed the victim and killed him to eliminate a witness who defendant felt would testify against him because \u201che had testified against him and sent him to prison before.\u201d Furthermore, the trial court\u2019s instruction that the jury should find this circumstance if it found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant\u2019s purpose in killing the victim was \u201cto avoid his arrest and that such arrest was lawful\u201d was of sufficient particularity to enable the jury to understand the law and apply it to the evidence presented and thus did not constitute plain error.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 598, 599, 628; Trial \u00a7 841.\nSufficiency of evidence, for purposes of death penalty, to establish statutory aggravating circumstance that murder was committed to avoid arrest or prosecution, to effect escape from custody, to hinder governmental function or enforcement of law, and the like \u2014 post-Gregg cases. 64 ALR4th 755.\n17. Criminal Law \u00a7 1314 (NCI4th)\u2014 capital sentencing\u2014 defendant\u2019s prison record \u2014 exclusion of repetitious testimony\nIn a capital sentencing proceeding in which defendant\u2019s psychologist testified that defendant\u2019s prison record contained only one significant violation involving two homemade knives or \u201cshanks\u201d found in his locker, the trial court did not deny defendant a fair hearing by sustaining the State\u2019s objection to a question to the psychologist as to whether it was common for inmates in maximum security to have shanks where the witness had already answered this question by her testimony that defendant\u2019s violation was \u201cnot uncommon\u201d among inmates in maximum custody facilities.\nAm Jur 2d, \u00a7\u00a7 598, 599.\n18. Criminal Law \u00a7 1326 (NCI4th)\u2014 capital sentencing \u2014 mitigating circumstances \u2014 burden of proof \u2014 instructions\u2014use of \u201csatisfies\u201d\nThe trial court\u2019s instruction that jurors could find a mitigating circumstance if the evidence \u201csatisfies any one of you\u201d of its existence did not increase defendant\u2019s burden of proof and was not plain error.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7 628; Trial \u00a7\u00a7 1441 et seq.\n19. Criminal Law \u00a7 1323 (NCX4th)\u2014 capital sentencing \u2014 non-statutory mitigating circumstances \u2014 instructions\u2014mitigating value\nThe trial court did not err by instructing the jury to find and consider only the nonstatutory mitigating circumstances one or more jurors found to exist and to have mitigating value.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7 628; Trial \u00a7\u00a7 1441 et seq.\n20. Criminal Law \u00a7 1325 (NCI4th)\u2014 capital sentencing\u2014 instructions \u2014 mitigating circumstances found by other jurors\nThe trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury in a capital sentencing proceeding that the entire jury as a whole must consider and weigh any mitigating circumstances found by any juror in reaching its answers to Issue Three and Issue Four.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7 628; Trial \u00a7\u00a7 1441 et seq.\n21. Criminal Law \u00a7 1373 (NCX4th)\u2014 first-degree murder\u2014 death penalty not disproportionate\nA sentence of death imposed upon defendant for first-degree murder was not excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant, where defendant was convicted under theories of premeditation and deliberation and felony murder; the jury found as aggravating circumstances that the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in the commission of an armed robbery and that it was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest; defendant planned and executed the robbery and murder of the seventy-one-year-old victim, who had befriended defendant when defendant worked at the cafeteria where the crimes occurred; and defendant killed the victim so that the victim could not testify against him.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7 628.\nJustice Frye concurring in part and dissenting in part.\nJustice Whichard joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.\nAppeal of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a) from a judgment imposing a sentence of death entered by Freeman, J., at the 8 September 1992 Special Criminal Session of Superior Court, Cabarrus County. Defendant\u2019s motion to bypass the Court of Appeals as to his robbery with a dangerous weapon conviction was allowed by the Supreme Court 8 February 1994. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 September 1994.\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Charles M. Hensey, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.\nMalcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by Gordon Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0364-01", "first_page_order": 398, "last_page_order": 450 }