{ "id": 3739347, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ALEXANDER CHARLES POLKE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Polke", "decision_date": "2006-12-15", "docket_number": "No. 412A05", "first_page": "65", "last_page": "77", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "361 N.C. 65" } ], "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": "513 U.S. 1046", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1331682, 1330979, 1331428, 1330819, 1331686, 1330634, 1331292, 1333776, 1330385, 1332081, 1334228, 1333815, 1334715, 1335068 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/513/1046-03", "/us/513/1046-07", "/us/513/1046-13", "/us/513/1046-06", "/us/513/1046-05", "/us/513/1046-11", "/us/513/1046-14", "/us/513/1046-12", "/us/513/1046-04", "/us/513/1046-08", "/us/513/1046-09", "/us/513/1046-10", "/us/513/1046-01", "/us/513/1046-02" ] }, { "cite": "525 U.S. 952", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11134915, 11134949, 11134887, 11134987, 11135084, 11134862, 11134899, 11134932, 11135069, 11135001, 11135036, 11134969, 11135103 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/525/0952-04", "/us/525/0952-06", "/us/525/0952-02", "/us/525/0952-08", "/us/525/0952-12", "/us/525/0952-01", "/us/525/0952-03", "/us/525/0952-05", "/us/525/0952-11", "/us/525/0952-09", "/us/525/0952-10", "/us/525/0952-07", "/us/525/0952-13" ] }, { "cite": "513 U.S. 1159", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1331456, 1334498, 1332549, 1332346, 1331241, 1334698, 1331178, 1330956, 1330509, 1330522, 1330858, 1335257, 1335770, 1333467, 1333725, 1332958 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/513/1159-10", "/us/513/1159-14", "/us/513/1159-12", "/us/513/1159-13", "/us/513/1159-07", "/us/513/1159-01", "/us/513/1159-09", "/us/513/1159-06", "/us/513/1159-16", "/us/513/1159-03", "/us/513/1159-04", "/us/513/1159-15", "/us/513/1159-05", "/us/513/1159-08", "/us/513/1159-02", "/us/513/1159-11" ] }, { "cite": "532 U.S. 931", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9315009, 9314948, 9314725, 9314822, 9314631, 9314695, 9314793, 9315113, 9314661, 9314863, 9315060, 9314585, 9314909 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/532/0931-11", "/us/532/0931-10", "/us/532/0931-05", "/us/532/0931-07", "/us/532/0931-02", "/us/532/0931-04", "/us/532/0931-06", "/us/532/0931-13", "/us/532/0931-03", "/us/532/0931-08", "/us/532/0931-12", "/us/532/0931-01", "/us/532/0931-09" ] }, { "cite": "517 U.S. 1123", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11768609, 11768993, 11768259, 11768294, 11768199, 11768841, 11768523, 11768781, 11768078, 11768143, 11768690, 11768915, 11768376, 11768027, 11768447 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/517/1123-10", "/us/517/1123-15", "/us/517/1123-05", "/us/517/1123-06", "/us/517/1123-04", "/us/517/1123-13", "/us/517/1123-09", "/us/517/1123-12", "/us/517/1123-02", "/us/517/1123-03", "/us/517/1123-11", "/us/517/1123-14", "/us/517/1123-07", "/us/517/1123-01", "/us/517/1123-08" ] }, { "cite": "519 U.S. 1097", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11765921, 11765698, 11765538, 11765284, 11765769, 11765993, 11765836, 11765390, 11765330, 11765618, 11765078, 11765464, 11765147, 11765212 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/519/1097-13", "/us/519/1097-10", "/us/519/1097-08", "/us/519/1097-04", "/us/519/1097-11", "/us/519/1097-14", "/us/519/1097-12", "/us/519/1097-06", "/us/519/1097-05", "/us/519/1097-09", "/us/519/1097-01", "/us/519/1097-07", "/us/519/1097-02", "/us/519/1097-03" ] }, { "cite": "526 U.S. 1053", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11152823, 11153250, 11153158, 11153062, 11152870, 11152714, 11152654, 11152753, 11153201, 11153012, 11152695, 11153112, 11152668, 11152958 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/526/1053-06", "/us/526/1053-14", "/us/526/1053-12", "/us/526/1053-10", "/us/526/1053-07", "/us/526/1053-04", "/us/526/1053-01", "/us/526/1053-05", "/us/526/1053-13", "/us/526/1053-09", "/us/526/1053-03", "/us/526/1053-11", "/us/526/1053-02", "/us/526/1053-08" ] }, { "cite": "537 U.S. 896", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9242368, 9242593, 9242307, 9242631, 9242668, 9242413, 9242511, 9242287, 9242481, 9242355, 9242453, 9242393, 9242330, 9242558, 9242431 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/537/0896-05", "/us/537/0896-13", "/us/537/0896-02", "/us/537/0896-14", "/us/537/0896-15", "/us/537/0896-07", "/us/537/0896-11", "/us/537/0896-01", "/us/537/0896-10", "/us/537/0896-04", "/us/537/0896-09", "/us/537/0896-06", "/us/537/0896-03", "/us/537/0896-12", "/us/537/0896-08" ] }, { "cite": "522 U.S. 1078", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11601344, 11601924, 11601414, 11601018, 11601319, 11601258, 11600907, 11601210, 11601841, 11601497, 11601466, 11601659, 11601756, 11601565 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/522/1078-06", "/us/522/1078-14", "/us/522/1078-07", "/us/522/1078-02", "/us/522/1078-05", "/us/522/1078-04", "/us/522/1078-01", "/us/522/1078-03", "/us/522/1078-13", "/us/522/1078-09", "/us/522/1078-08", "/us/522/1078-11", "/us/522/1078-12", "/us/522/1078-10" ] }, { "cite": "528 U.S. 973", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9560769, 9560449, 9559617, 9560072, 9560362, 9560139, 9560555, 9559696, 9559889, 9560208, 9559792, 9560663, 9559965, 9560287 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/528/0973-14", "/us/528/0973-11", "/us/528/0973-01", "/us/528/0973-06", "/us/528/0973-10", "/us/528/0973-07", "/us/528/0973-12", "/us/528/0973-02", "/us/528/0973-04", "/us/528/0973-08", "/us/528/0973-03", "/us/528/0973-13", "/us/528/0973-05", "/us/528/0973-09" ] }, { "cite": "488 U.S. 807", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1495009, 1493223, 1494535, 1493863, 1495309, 1494158, 1494194, 1493752 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/488/0807-01", "/us/488/0807-06", "/us/488/0807-04", "/us/488/0807-05", "/us/488/0807-08", "/us/488/0807-07", "/us/488/0807-03", "/us/488/0807-02" ] }, { "cite": "624 S.E.2d 309", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634818 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "320" }, { "page": "320", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/624/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "628 S.E.2d 735", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12635606 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "742", "parenthetical": "applying a clear abuse of discretion standard to the trial court's regulation of voir dire questioning" }, { "page": "742" }, { "page": "742", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/628/0735-01" ] }, { "cite": "522 U.S. 900", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11525121, 11525092, 11524710, 11524582, 11524807, 11525031, 11524847, 11524689, 11524884, 11524761, 11524635, 11524924, 11524734, 11524959 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/522/0900-14", "/us/522/0900-13", "/us/522/0900-04", "/us/522/0900-01", "/us/522/0900-07", "/us/522/0900-12", "/us/522/0900-08", "/us/522/0900-03", "/us/522/0900-09", "/us/522/0900-06", "/us/522/0900-02", "/us/522/0900-10", "/us/522/0900-05", "/us/522/0900-11" ] }, { "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", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "47" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "336 N.C. 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2538239 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "198" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/336/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 L. Ed. 2d 315", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "499 S.E.2d 753", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "760" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659839 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "213" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0203-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 L. Ed. 2d 1083", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 S. Ct. 1120", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "446 S.E.2d 542", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 N.C. 66", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2550101 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/337/0066-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 L. Ed. 2d 71", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "537 U.S. 845", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9214464, 9214752, 9214726, 9214633, 9214666, 9214506, 9214603, 9214445, 9214575, 9214800, 9214687, 9214484, 9214774, 9214550, 9214431 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/537/0845-03", "/us/537/0845-13", "/us/537/0845-12", "/us/537/0845-09", "/us/537/0845-10", "/us/537/0845-05", "/us/537/0845-08", "/us/537/0845-02", "/us/537/0845-07", "/us/537/0845-15", "/us/537/0845-11", "/us/537/0845-04", "/us/537/0845-14", "/us/537/0845-06", "/us/537/0845-01" ] }, { "cite": "558 S.E.2d 109", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "155" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 219986 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "72" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "149 L. Ed. 2d 305", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "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": "33" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4730916 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "230" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0179-01" ] }, { "cite": "533 S.E.2d 168", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "247", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Brown, 320 N.C. 179, 230, 358 S.E.2d 1, 33, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 970, 98 L. Ed. 2d 406 (1987)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 684963 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "487", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Brown, 320 N.C. 179, 230, 358 S.E.2d 1, 33, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 970, 98 L. Ed. 2d 406 (1987)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0364-01" ] }, { "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": "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": "319 S.E.2d 163", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "177", "parenthetical": "Mitchell (later C.J.), concurring in part and dissenting in part" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4686205 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "488" } ], "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": "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": "372 S.E.2d 517", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "323 N.C. 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2566216 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/323/0318-01" ] }, { "cite": "573 S.E.2d 870", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 446", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511417 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0446-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 L. Ed. 2d 895", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "512 U.S. 1254", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 39539 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/512/1254-01" ] }, { "cite": "433 S.E.2d 144", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "162" }, { "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": "240" }, { "page": "244" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "344 S.E.2d 775", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "782" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4774343 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "203-04" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0193-01" ] }, { "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, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "544" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572332 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "354" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0306-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 L. Ed. 2d 935", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "486 U.S. 1061", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6375268, 6376325, 6375755, 6375564, 6375412, 6376092 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/486/1061-01", "/us/486/1061-06", "/us/486/1061-04", "/us/486/1061-03", "/us/486/1061-02", "/us/486/1061-05" ] }, { "cite": "362 S.E.2d 513", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "537", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Rogers, 316 N.C. 203, 341 S.E.2d 713" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2567820 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "164-65", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Rogers, 316 N.C. 203, 341 S.E.2d 713" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0125-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 L. Ed. 2d 526", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "461 S.E.2d 664", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "682-83" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 N.C. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 793157 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "505-06" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/341/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 L. Ed. 2d 723", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "472 S.E.2d 842", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "861" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "343 N.C. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 798778 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "553-54" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/343/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 L. Ed. 2d 522", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "505 S.E.2d 80", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "94" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 N.C. 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571537 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "191" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "478 U.S. 570", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6210041 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "579", "parenthetical": "\"Placed in context, the erroneous malice [jury] instruction [at issue] does not compare with the kinds of errors that automatically require reversal of an otherwise valid conviction.\"" }, { "page": "471", "parenthetical": "\"Placed in context, the erroneous malice [jury] instruction [at issue] does not compare with the kinds of errors that automatically require reversal of an otherwise valid conviction.\"" }, { "page": "579" }, { "page": "471", "parenthetical": "\"[I]f the defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator, there is a strong presumption that any other errors that may have occurred are subject to harmless-error analysis.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/478/0570-01" ] }, { "cite": "499 U.S. 279", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11318776 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "295", "parenthetical": "applying harmless error analysis to trial court's admission of a coerced confession" }, { "page": "322", "parenthetical": "applying harmless error analysis to trial court's admission of a coerced confession" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/499/0279-01" ] }, { "cite": "527 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1248184 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "15", "parenthetical": "applying harmless error analysis to a trial court's omission of an element of the offense from the jury charge" }, { "page": "51", "parenthetical": "applying harmless error analysis to a trial court's omission of an element of the offense from the jury charge" }, { "page": "8" }, { "page": "46" }, { "page": "9" }, { "page": "47", "parenthetical": "emphasis omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/527/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "165 L. Ed. 2d 466", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3500415 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "474-77", "parenthetical": "applying harmless error analysis to a trial court's failure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/548/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "520 U.S. 461", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11652245 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "468-69" }, { "page": "728" }, { "page": "468" }, { "page": "728" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/520/0461-01" ] }, { "cite": "508 U.S. 275", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12227 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/508/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "467 U.S. 39", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6193857 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/467/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "465 U.S. 168", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11335001 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/465/0168-01" ] }, { "cite": "474 U.S. 254", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6203718 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/474/0254-01" ] }, { "cite": "273 U.S. 510", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6142780 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/273/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "372 U.S. 335", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1765333 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/372/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "410 S.E.2d 57", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "58" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "330 N.C. 161", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2512915 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "163" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/330/0161-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 L. Ed. 2d 165", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "558 S.E.2d 463", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "483" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 220002 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "104" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 L. Ed. 2d 797", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "531 U.S. 1130", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9725312, 9726080, 9725538, 9725636, 9725125, 9726440, 9726185, 9725963, 9725742, 9726553, 9726323, 9725849, 9725435, 9725213 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/531/1130-03", "/us/531/1130-10", "/us/531/1130-05", "/us/531/1130-06", "/us/531/1130-01", "/us/531/1130-13", "/us/531/1130-11", "/us/531/1130-09", "/us/531/1130-07", "/us/531/1130-14", "/us/531/1130-12", "/us/531/1130-08", "/us/531/1130-04", "/us/531/1130-02" ] }, { "cite": "531 S.E.2d 428", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "quoting Strickland, 346 N.C. at 464, 488 S.E.2d at 206" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 685078 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "quoting Strickland, 346 N.C. at 464, 488 S.E.2d at 206" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 L. Ed. 2d 757", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "488 S.E.2d 194", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "206", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "206" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "346 N.C. 443", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 139431 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "463", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "464" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/346/0443-01" ] }, { "cite": "145 L. Ed. 2d 326", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "513 S.E.2d 296", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "315" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 152", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 132105 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "183" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0152-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 L. Ed. 2d 370", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citations and internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "541 U.S. 944", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5878913, 5918562, 5913478, 5872903, 5871369, 3634891, 5895147, 5905774, 5887894, 3634328, 5890777, 5872730, 5910715, 5924797 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/541/0944-02", "/us/541/0944-14", "/us/541/0944-05", "/us/541/0944-03", "/us/541/0944-07", "/us/541/0944-12", "/us/541/0944-01", "/us/541/0944-09", "/us/541/0944-10", "/us/541/0944-04", "/us/541/0944-11", "/us/541/0944-06", "/us/541/0944-13", "/us/541/0944-08" ] }, { "cite": "584 S.E.2d 740", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "748" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491669 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "377" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 L. Ed. 2d 18", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "364 S.E.2d 316", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "323" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 301", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2567784 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "311-12" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0301-01" ] }, { "cite": "165 L. Ed. 2d 429", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3500516 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "440" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/548/0163-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 L. Ed. 2d 131", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 181", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3789879 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "194" }, { "page": "194" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0181-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 L. Ed. 2d 895", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "513 U.S. 1135", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1332513, 1333762, 1333317, 1330854, 1331561, 1333466, 1332010, 1335833, 1334928, 1334225, 1331538, 1335700, 1335894, 1330809, 1330874, 1331419 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/513/1135-09", "/us/513/1135-05", "/us/513/1135-08", "/us/513/1135-03", "/us/513/1135-15", "/us/513/1135-04", "/us/513/1135-14", "/us/513/1135-02", "/us/513/1135-12", "/us/513/1135-07", "/us/513/1135-11", "/us/513/1135-10", "/us/513/1135-16", "/us/513/1135-06", "/us/513/1135-01", "/us/513/1135-13" ] }, { "cite": "446 S.E.2d 298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "316" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 N.C. 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2550074 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272-73" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/337/0243-01" ] }, { "cite": "470 S.E.2d 38", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "44" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "343 N.C. 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 798787 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "240" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/343/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "367 S.E.2d 589", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "604-05" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "322 N.C. 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2519607 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "143-44" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/322/0117-01" ] }, { "cite": "282 S.E.2d 439", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "446-47" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565336 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "104" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 L. Ed. 2d 378", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "applying a clear abuse of discretion standard to the trial court's regulation of voir dire questioning" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3789392 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "409", "parenthetical": "applying a clear abuse of discretion standard to the trial court's regulation of voir dire questioning" }, { "page": "409-10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "324 S.E.2d 829", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "833" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 770", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4755941 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "777" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0770-01" ] }, { "cite": "495 S.E.2d 700", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "708", "parenthetical": "defining the term \"abuse of discretion\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "347 N.C. 489", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 551263 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "503", "parenthetical": "defining the term \"abuse of discretion\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/347/0489-01" ] }, { "cite": "364 S.E.2d 373", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "375-76" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 570", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2569559 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "573-74" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0570-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 L. Ed. 2d 177", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "483 S.E.2d 396", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "414" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 N.C. 647", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 53878 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "676-77" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/345/0647-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 S.E.2d 713", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "722" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4694780 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "218" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0203-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1211, "char_count": 30612, "ocr_confidence": 0.747, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.121000290930672e-08, "percentile": 0.46817401323397617 }, "sha256": "a6b30e30f46b0dc25aca1aa9a6e4563fd9f741ee6f351ee6f4728921d32b0245", "simhash": "1:4f6f817e364b2cd3", "word_count": 4934 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:19:48.141297+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ALEXANDER CHARLES POLKE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WAINWRIGHT, Justice.\nOn 27 April 2003, defendant Alexander Charles Polke fatally shot Randolph County Sheriff\u2019s Deputy Toney Clayton Summey (Deputy Summey) in the neck and abdomen at close range. At the time of the shooting, Deputy Summey and Deputy Nathan Hollingsworth were on the front porch of defendant\u2019s home attempting to serve warrants for defendant\u2019s arrest. Defendant resisted and shot Deputy Summey with his own service pistol during the ensuing struggle. Defendant next shot and injured Deputy Hollingsworth, who was able to take cover behind his vehicle. Defendant surrendered at the scene to Deputy Lieutenant Johnnie Hussey, who responded to a call for assistance from Deputy Hollingsworth. While repeatedly telling Lieutenant Hussey that Deputy Summey had used pepper spray on him, defendant angrily stated, \u201c[H]e shouldn\u2019t have pepper sprayed me,\u201d and asked, \u201cWhy did he pepper spray me\u201d? While being transported to the Randolph County Sheriff\u2019s Department, defendant further stated: \u201cI shouldn\u2019t have shot him[;] he was just doing his job.\u201d\nA Randolph County Grand Jury indicted defendant for first-degree murder on 5 May 2003, and defendant pleaded guilty to the first-degree murder charge on 31 January 2005. A capital sentencing proceeding was held at the 31 January 2005 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Randolph County, during which defendant called no witnesses and presented no evidence. On 7 February 2005, the sentencing jury returned its verdict, finding three aggravating factors and no mitigating factors, and recommending a capital sentence. Judge Steve A. Balog sentenced defendant to death by order dated that same day.\nAdditional relevant facts will be provided when necessary to resolve the issues on appeal.\nDefendant raises nine assignments of error on appeal. Four assignments concern questions of law that have previously been determined by this Court. Defendant raises these arguments for purposes of preservation. The five remaining assignments of error concern defendant\u2019s capital-sentencing proceeding: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant\u2019s pretrial motion to question prospective jurors about the relative cost of executions versus life imprisonment, (2) whether the trial court committed plain error by submitting the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(l) mitigating factor to the jury, (3) whether the trial court committed plain error by failing to submit the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(2) and (f)(6) mitigating factors to the jury, (4) whether the trial court committed structural error by failing to submit the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(e)(5) aggravating factor to the jury, and (5) whether the trial court committed plain error by failing to intervene ex mero motu during the State\u2019s closing argument.\nPRETRIAL MOTIONS\nFirst, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his pretrial motion to ask prospective jurors whether they had formed a belief about the relative cost of life imprisonment versus the cost of execution. Defendant contends that the question was necessary to ensure an impartial jury. We note that the trial court did, in fact, permit defendant to ask this question after defendant renewed his motion during jury selection. In so doing, the trial court asked defense counsel whether he was making a strategic decision to raise this issue, which the prospective jurors may not previously have thought about and which is improper for jurors to consider in a capital case. When defense counsel confirmed that he wanted to ask the question, the court allowed counsel\u2019s renewed motion.\nTrial courts have broad discretionary power to regulate the manner and extent of jury voir dire. State v. Rogers, 316 N.C. 203, 218, 341 S.E.2d 713, 722 (1986), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 676-77, 483 S.E.2d 396, 414, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900, 139 L. Ed. 2d 177 (1997), and by State v. Vandiver, 321 N.C. 570, 573-74, 364 S.E.2d 373, 375-76 (1988). A trial court\u2019s discretionary ruling governing voir dire will not be overruled on appeal unless it is \u201c \u2018manifestly unsupported by reason\u2019 \u201d or \u201c \u2018so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.\u2019 \u201d State v. T.D.R., 347 N.C. 489, 503, 495 S.E.2d 700, 708 (1998) (defining the term \u201cabuse of discretion\u201d) (quoting White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985)); See also State v. Elliott, 360 N.C. 400, 409, 628 S.E.2d 735, 742, cert. denied, -U.S. -, 166 L. Ed. 2d 378 (2006) (applying a clear abuse of discretion standard to the trial court\u2019s regulation of voir dire questioning). We have recently determined that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a defendant\u2019s request to ask an identical question in State v. Elliott. 360 N.C. at 409-10, 628 S.E.2d at 742. In Elliott, this Court explained that \u201ca trial court\u2019s discretion is properly used to ensure that a juror can put aside any personal beliefs in the propriety of capital punishment and recommend a sentence in accordance with the trial court\u2019s instructions and the law.\u201d Id. at 410, 628 S.E.2d at 742 (citations omitted).\nAfter thorough review of the record we are satisfied that defendant was permitted to question jurors about their ability to apply the law as given by the trial court. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant\u2019s pretrial motion. This assignment of error is overruled.\nCAPITAL SENTENCING PROCEEDING\nSecond, defendant argues that the trial court committed plain error by instructing jurors on a statutory mitigating circumstance that was not supported by the evidence: \u201cThe defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(l) (2005). The record shows that the court decided to submit the (f)(1) mitigating circumstance at defense counsel\u2019s request, after substantial discussion between the court, defense counsel, and the district attorney. Now defendant assigns plain error to the trial court\u2019s submission of the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(l) mitigating circumstance. Defendant argues that evidence of defendant\u2019s prior criminal activity was significant and that improper \u201csubmission of the [N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(l) mitigating] factor skews the entire deliberative process\u201d because \u201c[a] jury improperly presented with the (f)(1) mitigating factor may view all [mitigating] factors submitted with cynicism and skepticism and conclude they are unworthy of belief.\u201d\nIn a capital case, mitigating circumstances extenuate or reduce a defendant\u2019s moral culpability for a first-degree murder, making the crime less deserving of a capital sentence. State v. Irwin, 304 N.C. 93, 104, 282 S.E.2d 439, 446-47 (1981). The North Carolina General Assembly has determined that certain facts, including that a defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity, have mitigating value as a matter of law. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f) (2005); State v. Wilson, 322 N.C. 117, 143-44, 367 S.E.2d 589, 604-05 (1988). Once a mitigating circumstance is found by the jury to exist, jurors must determine the degree to which the circumstance mitigates the crime. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b) (2005). It is not appropriate for jurors to assign no weight to an existing statutory mitigating circumstance. State v. Howell, 343 N.C. 229, 240, 470 S.E.2d 38, 44 (1996).\nIf a defendant produces substantial evidence supporting the (f)(1) mitigating circumstance, the trial judge must submit this circumstance to the jury. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b); State v. Daniels, 337 N.C. 243, 272-73, 446 S.E.2d 298, 316 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1135, 130 L. Ed. 2d 895 (1995). This is true even when the defendant objects to its submission. State v. Hurst, 360 N.C. 181, 194, 624 S.E.2d 309, 320, cert. denied, -U.S. -, 166 L. Ed. 2d 131 (2006). By ensuring that jurors consider all relevant mitigating evidence, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(i) thereby protects a capital defendant\u2019s right to individualized sentencing. Kansas v. Marsh, -U.S. -, -, 165 L. Ed. 2d 429, 440 (2006).\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b) provides:\nIn all cases in which the death penalty may be authorized, the judge shall include in his instructions to the jury that it must consider any aggravating circumstance or circumstances or mitigating circumstance or circumstances from the lists provided in subsections (e) and (f) which may be supported by the evidence, and shall furnish to the jury a written list of issues relating to such aggravating or mitigating circumstance or circumstances.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b) (emphases added). Because the language of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b) is mandatory, this Court recently determined that \u201cthe doctrine of invited error cannot apply when the [(f)(1)] instruction is [erroneously] withheld at the defendant\u2019s request.\u201d Hurst, 360 N.C. at 194, 624 S.E.2d at 320 (emphasis added). When the (f)(1) instruction is erroneously withheld, jurors consider fewer mitigating factors than required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b), and the defendant does not receive the full benefit of all relevant mitigating evidence presented on his behalf. Correspondingly, when the (f)(1) circumstance is erroneously submitted at defendant\u2019s request, jurors are presented with more mitigating factors than required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b). The latter error does not violate the mandate of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b) because the jury considers every mitigating circumstance supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we conclude that the doctrine of invited error does apply when the trial court erroneously submits the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(l) mitigating factor at defendant\u2019s request.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1443(c) provides that \u201c[a] defendant is not prejudiced by . . . error resulting from his own conduct.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1443(c) (2005). Here, defendant requested that the trial court instruct the jury on the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 l-5A-2000(f)(l) mitigating circumstance. For this reason, we conclude that defendant invited any error resulting from submission of the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000 (f)(1) mitigating circumstance to the jury. This assignment of error is overruled.\nThird, defendant argues that the trial court committed plain error by failing to submit two statutory mitigating circumstances that were supported by the evidence. Defendant contends that evidence tending to show he shot Deputy Summey in response to being sprayed with pepper spray was sufficient to support the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(2) and (f)(6) mitigating circumstances. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(2) states that \u201c[t]he capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance,\u201d and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000 (f)(6) states that \u201c[t]he capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired.\u201d Defendant argues that the pain and disabling effects caused by the pepper spray resulted in a mental or emotional disturbance and impaired his mental capacity during the shooting. After examining the evidence presented during sentencing, we determine that the trial court did not commit plain error by choosing not to submit these mitigating circumstances to the jury.\nA trial court must instruct the jury on every statutory mitigating circumstance that is supported by substantial evidence. Id. \u00a7 15A-2000(b); State v. Lloyd, 321 N.C. 301, 311-12, 364 S.E.2d 316, 323, judgment vacated on other grounds, 488 U.S. 807, 102 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1988). This is true even when the defendant fails to request the instruction or objects to its submission. State v. Watts, 357 N.C. 366, 377, 584 S.E.2d 740, 748 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 944, 158 L. Ed. 2d 370 (2004). Substantial evidence is evidence from which \u201ca juror could reasonably find that the circumstance exists.\u201d Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant carries the burden to produce substantial evidence that a mitigating circumstance exists, id., and mere speculation or conjecture is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement. State v. Anderson, 350 N.C. 152, 183, 513 S.E.2d 296, 315, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 973, 145 L. Ed. 2d 326 (1999).\nUpon submission of the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(2) mitigating circumstance, jurors must consider whether \u201c[t]he capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(2). \u201cAlthough expert testimony is not always necessary to support a finding of this [N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(2)] mitigator, the absence of such testimony may be considered when determining whether the (f)(2) mitigator is supported by substantial evidence.\u201d State v. Strickland, 346 N.C. 443, 463, 488 S.E.2d 194, 206 (1997) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1078, 139 L. Ed. 2d 757 (1998). \u201cSheer anger or the inability to control one\u2019s temper \u2018is neither mental nor emotional disturbance as contemplated by this mitigator.\u2019 \u201d State v. Braxton, 352 N.C. 158, 531 S.E.2d 428 (2000) (quoting Strickland, 346 N.C. at 464, 488 S.E.2d at 206), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1130, 148 L. Ed. 2d 797 (2001).\nUpon submission of the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(6) mitigating circumstance, jurors must consider whether \u201c[t]he capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(6). A defendant\u2019s actions after killing the victim may demonstrate that he was aware that his acts were criminal. State v. Gainey, 355 N.C. 73, 104, 558 S.E.2d 463, 483, cert. denied, 537 U.S. 896, 154 L. Ed. 2d 165 (2002).\nThe record shows that Deputy Summey\u2019s pepper spray canister was seventy-one percent full after the shooting. Defendant repeatedly told Lieutenant Hussey that Deputy Summey had used pepper spray on him, angrily stating \u201cHe should not have pepper sprayed me\u201d and asking, \u201cWhy did he pepper spray me\u201d? Defendant stated in his confession that he took the deputy\u2019s service revolver after the deputy sprayed defendant with pepper spray and while the deputy was attempting to administer more spray. However, Lieutenant Hussey testified during sentencing that he did not detect any sign of pepper spray on defendant when defendant was apprehended. Defendant did not call any witnesses on his behalf at sentencing and did not present any additional evidence concerning the effect of pepper spray on him personally.\nAfter thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence presented by the State tends to show that, although defendant was angry about being sprayed with pepper spray, he shot Deputy Summey for the purpose of evading arrest. Defendant did not produce substantial evidence to support the submission of either mitigating circumstance. For these reasons, the trial court did not err by failing to submit these mitigating circumstances ex mero motu. This assignment of error is overruled.\nFourth, defendant argues that the trial court committed structural error by failing to submit an aggravating circumstance to the jury: \u201cThe capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged ... in the commission of, or an attempt to commit. . . any homicide ....\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(e)(5) (2005). Defendant contends that this aggravating circumstance was supported by the evidence and that failure to submit it rendered the jury\u2019s recommended sentence \u201c \u2018arbitary and, therefore, unconstitutional,\u2019 \u201d citing State v. Case, 330 N.C. 161, 163, 410 S.E.2d 57, 58 (1991). Thus, defendant concludes that the assigned error is structural and he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. We make no decision as to whether the trial court should have submitted the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(e)(5) aggravating circumstance in this case; rather, we determine that a trial court\u2019s failure to submit an aggravating circumstance is not structural error.\nThe United States Supreme Court has identified only six instances of structural error to date: (1) complete deprivation of right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963); (2) a biased trial judge, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 71 L. Ed. 749 (1927); (3) the unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant\u2019s race, Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 88 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1986); (4) denial of the right to self-representation at trial, McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 79 L. Ed. 2d 122, 104 S. Ct. 944 (1984); (5) denial of the right to a public trial, Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 81 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1984); and (6) constitutionally deficient jury instructions on reasonable doubt, Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 124 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1993). See Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468-69, 137 L. Ed. 2d 718, 728 (identifying the six cases in which the United States Supreme Court has found structural error). The Court has also determined that other, arguably serious, constitutional errors are subject to harmless error review. See, e.g., Washington v. Recuenco, -U.S. -, -, 165 L. Ed. 2d 466, 474-77 (2006) (applying harmless error analysis to a trial court\u2019s failure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 15, 144 L. Ed. 2d 35, 51 (1999) (applying harmless error analysis to a trial court\u2019s omission of an element of the offense from the jury charge); Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295, 113 L. Ed. 2d 302, 322 (1991) (applying harmless error analysis to trial court\u2019s admission of a coerced confession); and Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 579, 92 L. Ed. 2d 460, 471 (1986) (\u201cPlaced in context, the erroneous malice [jury] instruction [at issue] does not compare with the kinds of errors that automatically require reversal of an otherwise valid conviction.\u201d) In fact, the United States Supreme Court emphasizes a strong presumption against structural error, Rose, 478 U.S. at 579, 92 L. Ed. 2d at 471 (\u201c[I]f the defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator, there is a strong presumption that any other errors that may have occurred are subject to harmless-error analysis.\u201d); see Neder, 527 U.S. at 8, 144 L. Ed. 2d at 46 (\u201c[W]e have found an error to be \u2018structural,\u2019 and thus subject to automatic reversal, only in a \u2018very limited class of cases.\u2019 \u201d (quoting Johnson, 520 U.S. at 468, 137 L. Ed. 2d at 728)), and the designation \u201cstructural error\u201d is reserved for errors that \u201cnecessarily render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence,\u201d Neder, 527 U.S. at 9, 144 L. Ed. 2d at 47 (emphasis omitted).\nThe error cited by defendant is not similar in type or degree to the group of errors that the United States Supreme Court has determined to be structural. Accordingly, we decline to apply structural error analysis to the trial court\u2019s failure to submit an aggravating circumstance. This assignment of error is overruled.\nFifth, defendant argues that the trial court committed plain error by failing to intervene ex mero motu during the State\u2019s closing argument. Defendant contends that the district attorney improperly told jurors that their decision should not be motivated by mercy; rather, jurors should consider the evidence and the law. This Court has previously upheld similar closing arguments in State v. Hoffman, State v. Bishop, and State v. Frye. State v. Hoffman, 349 N.C. 167, 191, 505 S.E.2d 80, 94 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1053, 143 L. Ed. 2d 522 (1999); State v. Bishop, 343 N.C. 518, 553-54, 472 S.E.2d 842, 861 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1097, 136 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1997); State v. Frye, 341 N.C. 470, 505-06, 461 S.E.2d 664, 682-83 (1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1123, 134 L. Ed. 2d 526 (1996). We determine that these previous decisions govern the issue sub judice and that, in context, the district attorney\u2019s argument was not grossly improper. This assignment of error is overruled.\nPRESERVATION ISSUES\nDefendant has briefed four additional assignments of error for purposes of preservation. These assignments concern questions of law that this Court has previously resolved contrary to defendant\u2019s position: (1) whether the trial court subjected defendant to double jeopardy by submitting both the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000 (e)(4) and (e)(8) aggravating circumstances, (2) whether the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury pursuant to the North Carolina pattern jury instruction on mitigating circumstances, (3) whether the absence of aggravating circumstances in the indictment deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to enter a death sentence, and (4) whether a short-form indictment is sufficient to charge defendant with first-degree murder. This Court has carefully considered defendant\u2019s arguments on these issues and we find no compelling reason to depart from our prior holdings. For this reason, defendant\u2019s assignments of error are overruled.\nPROPORTIONALITY\nHaving found no error in defendant\u2019s capital sentencing proceeding, we must now determine: (1) whether the evidence presented during sentencing supports the aggravating circumstances found by the jury, (2) whether the jury\u2019s imposition of the death penalty was influenced by \u201cpassion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor,\u201d and (3) whether the death sentence is \u201cexcessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(d)(2) (2005).\nHere, jurors found that three aggravating circumstances existed beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the murder was committed for the purpose of preventing a lawful arrest, (2) the murder was committed against a law enforcement officer while in the performance of his official duties, and (3) the murder was part of a course of conduct in which the defendant engaged and the course of conduct included the commission by defendant of other crimes of violence against other persons. Id. \u00a7 15A-2000(e)(4), (e)(8), and (e)(ll). The trial court also submitted one statutory and seven nonstatutory mitigating circumstances to the jury for consideration, but jurors did not find any of these mitigating circumstances to exist.\nAfter reviewing the records, transcripts, briefs, and oral arguments, we conclude that the evidence supports the jury\u2019s finding of all three aggravating circumstances. Additionally, we conclude, based on a thorough review of the record, that the sentence of death was not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. Thus, the final statutory duty of this Court is to conduct proportionality review.\nThe purpose of proportionality review is \u201cto eliminate the possibility that a person will be sentenced to die by the action of an aberrant jury.\u201d State v. Holden, 321 N.C. 125, 164-65, 362 S.E.2d 513, 537 (1987) (citing State v. Rogers, 316 N.C. 203, 341 S.E.2d 713), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061, 100 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1988). Proportionality review also acts \u201c[a]s a check against the capricious or random imposition of the death penalty.\u201d State v. Barfield, 298 N.C. 306, 354, 259 S.E.2d 510, 544 (1979), cert. denied, 448 U.S. 907, 65 L. Ed. 2d 1137 (1980), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Johnson, 317 N.C. 193, 203-04, 344 S.E.2d 775, 782 (1986). In conducting proportionality review, we compare the present case with other cases in which this Court has concluded that the death penalty was disproportionate. State v. McCollum, 334 N.C. 208, 240, 433 S.E.2d 144, 162 (1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1254, 129 L. Ed. 2d 895 (1994).\nWe have found the death sentence disproportionate in eight cases. State v. Kemmerlin, 356 N.C. 446, 573 S.E.2d 870 (2002); State v. Benson, 323 N.C. 318, 372 S.E.2d 517 (1988); State v. Stokes, 319 N.C. 1, 352 S.E.2d 653 (1987); State v. Rogers, 316 N.C. 203, 341 S.E.2d 713 (1986); State v. Young, 312 N.C. 669, 325 S.E.2d 181 (1985); State v. Hill, 311 N.C. 465, 319 S.E.2d 163 (1984); State v. Bondurant, 309 N.C. 674, 309 S.E.2d 170 (1983); State v. Jackson, 309 N.C. 26, 305 S.E.2d 703 (1983).\nWe conclude that this case is not substantially similar to any case in which this Court has found the death penalty disproportionate. The evidence shows that defendant murdered a law enforcement officer for the purpose of evading lawful arrest. \u201c[T]he N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(e)(4) and (e)(8) aggravating circumstances reflect the General Assembly\u2019s recognition that \u2018the collective conscience requires the most severe penalty for those who flout our system of law enforcement.\u2019 \u201d State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364, 487, 533 S.E.2d 168, 247 (2000) (quoting State v. Brown, 320 N.C. 179, 230, 358 S.E.2d 1, 33, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 970, 98 L. Ed. 2d 406 (1987)), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 931, 149 L. Ed. 2d 305 (2001).\n\u201cThe murder of a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties differs in kind and not merely in degree from other murders. When in the performance of his duties, a law enforcement officer is the representative of the public and a symbol of the rule of law. The murder of a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his duties in the truest sense strikes a blow at the entire public \u2014 the body politic \u2014 and is a direct attack upon the rule of law which must prevail if our society as we know it is to survive.\u201d\nState v. Nicholson, 355 N.C. 1, 72, 558 S.E.2d 109, 155 (quoting State v. Hill, 311 N.C. at 488, 319 S.E.2d at 177 (Mitchell (later C.J.), concurring in part and dissenting in part), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 845, 154 L. Ed. 2d 71 (2002). Additionally, this Court has never found a death sentence to be disproportionate when the jury found more than two aggravating circumstances to exist, and we have found the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000 (e)(ll) aggravating circumstance, standing alone, sufficient to support a death sentence. See State v. Bacon, 337 N.C. 66, 110 n.8, 446 S.E.2d 542, 566 n.8 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1159, 115 S. Ct. 1120, 130 L. Ed. 2d 1083 (1995).\nAlthough we compare this case with the cases in which this Court has found the death penalty to be proportionate, McCollum, 334 N.C. at 244, 433 S.E.2d at 164, \u201cwe will not undertake to discuss or cite all of those cases each time we carry out that duty.\u201d Id.; accord State v. Gregory, 348 N.C. 203, 213, 499 S.E.2d 753, 760, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 952, 142 L. Ed. 2d 315, (1998). Whether a sentence of death is \u201cdisproportionate in a particular case ultimately rest[s] upon the \u2018experienced judgments\u2019 of the members of this Court.\u201d State v. Green, 336 N.C. 142, 198, 443 S.E.2d 14, 47 (citation omitted), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1046, 130 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1994). Based upon the crime defendant committed and the record in this case, we are convinced the sentence of death, recommended by the jury and ordered by the trial court, is not disproportionate or excessive.\nAccordingly, we conclude defendant received a fair capital sentencing proceeding, free from prejudicial error. The sentence entered by the trial court is left undisturbed.\nNO ERROR.", "type": "majority", "author": "WAINWRIGHT, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by William B. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, by Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ALEXANDER CHARLES POLKE\nNo. 412A05\n(Filed 15 December 2006)\n1. Sentencing\u2014 jtury selection \u2014 question concerning relative cost of punishments\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion at a capital sentencing proceeding by denying defendant\u2019s pretrial motion to ask prospective jurors whether they had formed a belief about the relative cost of life imprisonment versus the cost of execution. Defendant was allowed to ask this question after renewing the motion during jury selection.\n2. Sentencing\u2014 capital \u2014 mitigating circumstance \u2014 request by defendant \u2014 invited error\nThe trial court in a capital sentencing proceeding did not commit plain error by instructing jurors on the mitigating circumstance of no significant history of prior criminal activity (N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(l)). The defendant requested the instruction and invited any error; the doctrine of invited error cannot apply when this instruction is erroneously withheld at defendant\u2019s request (because the jurors then consider fewer mitigating factors than required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b)), but it applies when the trial court erroneously submits the mitigating circumstance at defendant\u2019s request.\n3. Sentencing\u2014 mitigating circumstances \u2014 emotional disturbance and impaired capacity from pepper spray \u2014 not submitted \u2014 insufficient evidence\nThe trial court in a capital sentencing proceeding did not commit plain error by not submitting the mitigating circumstances that defendant was under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance (N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(2)) and that his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct was impaired (N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(6)) after he was subjected to pepper spray. Defendant did not call any witnesses on his behalf at sentencing and did not present any additional evidence concerning the effect of pepper spray on him, while the State\u2019s evidence tended to show that defendant shot a deputy to evade arrest, although he was angry about being sprayed.\n4. Sentencing\u2014 aggravating circumstances \u2014 failure to submit \u2014 no structural error\nThere was no structural error in a capital sentencing proceeding in the failure to submit the aggravating circumstance that defendant was engaged in the commission or attempt to commit a homicide (N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(e)(5)). The error cited by defendant is not similar in type or degree to the group of errors that the United States Supreme Court has determined to be structural.\n5. Sentencing\u2014 prosecutor\u2019s argument \u2014 no mercy \u2014 intervention ex mero motu not required\nThere was no plain error in a capital sentencing proceeding where the court did not intervene ex mero motu when the prosecutor argued to the jurors that their decision should not be motivated by mercy but by the evidence and the law.\n6. Sentencing\u2014 death \u2014 proportionality\nA death sentence for a defendant who murdered a law enforcement office to evade arrest was proportionate where the evidence supported the three aggravating circumstances which were found, the sentence was not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor, and the case was not substantially similar to any case in which a death penalty was found disproportionate.\nAppeal as of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a) from a judgment imposing a sentence of death entered by Judge Steve A. Balog on 7 February 2005 in Superior Court, Randolph County, following defendant\u2019s plea of guilty to first-degree murder. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 September 2006.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by William B. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nStaples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, by Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0065-01", "first_page_order": 123, "last_page_order": 135 }