{ "id": 3738718, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN SCOTT BADGETT", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Badgett", "decision_date": "2007-05-04", "docket_number": "No. 522A04", "first_page": "234", "last_page": "265", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "361 N.C. 234" } ], "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": "517 U.S. 1225", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11845761, 11844962, 11845059, 11845253, 11844871, 11845992, 11845451, 11845550, 11844783, 11845937, 11845361, 11845842, 11845656, 11845885, 11845150 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/517/1225-11", "/us/517/1225-03", "/us/517/1225-04", "/us/517/1225-06", "/us/517/1225-02", "/us/517/1225-15", "/us/517/1225-08", "/us/517/1225-09", "/us/517/1225-01", "/us/517/1225-14", "/us/517/1225-07", "/us/517/1225-12", "/us/517/1225-10", "/us/517/1225-13", "/us/517/1225-05" ] }, { "cite": "528 U.S. 1164", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9689700, 9689668, 9689509, 9689573, 9689736, 9689805, 9689774, 9689551, 9689616, 9689843, 9689526, 9689495, 9689592, 9689883 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/528/1164-09", "/us/528/1164-08", "/us/528/1164-02", "/us/528/1164-05", "/us/528/1164-10", "/us/528/1164-12", "/us/528/1164-11", "/us/528/1164-04", "/us/528/1164-07", "/us/528/1164-13", "/us/528/1164-03", "/us/528/1164-01", "/us/528/1164-06", "/us/528/1164-14" ] }, { "cite": "519 U.S. 894", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11650948, 11650856, 11650697, 11651114, 11650666, 11650987, 11650767, 11651023, 11651059, 11651156, 11650904, 11650809, 11651194, 11650716 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/519/0894-08", "/us/519/0894-06", "/us/519/0894-02", "/us/519/0894-12", "/us/519/0894-01", "/us/519/0894-09", "/us/519/0894-04", "/us/519/0894-10", "/us/519/0894-11", "/us/519/0894-13", "/us/519/0894-07", "/us/519/0894-05", "/us/519/0894-14", "/us/519/0894-03" ] }, { "cite": "514 U.S. 1100", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1339873, 1338917, 1338823, 1338539, 1339532, 1339693, 1339248, 1339090, 1339091, 1338770, 1339571, 1339705, 1340155, 1339037 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/514/1100-02", "/us/514/1100-07", "/us/514/1100-12", "/us/514/1100-04", "/us/514/1100-05", "/us/514/1100-11", "/us/514/1100-09", "/us/514/1100-08", "/us/514/1100-10", "/us/514/1100-03", "/us/514/1100-13", "/us/514/1100-14", "/us/514/1100-06", "/us/514/1100-01" ] }, { "cite": "513 U.S. 891", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1333729, 1333350, 1333959, 1335832, 1332299, 1334700, 1330702, 1330417, 1331764, 1333716, 1332246, 1335543, 1331544, 1330525, 1331358, 1335743 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/513/0891-09", "/us/513/0891-13", "/us/513/0891-10", "/us/513/0891-12", "/us/513/0891-07", "/us/513/0891-06", "/us/513/0891-15", "/us/513/0891-16", "/us/513/0891-08", "/us/513/0891-01", "/us/513/0891-14", "/us/513/0891-04", "/us/513/0891-11", "/us/513/0891-05", "/us/513/0891-02", "/us/513/0891-03" ] }, { "cite": "534 U.S. 1147", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9256736, 9256996, 9257189, 9256777, 9257036, 9257356, 9257228, 9257136, 9256693, 9256886, 9256920, 9257306, 9256827, 9257276, 9256957, 9256858 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/534/1147-02", "/us/534/1147-09", "/us/534/1147-12", "/us/534/1147-03", "/us/534/1147-10", "/us/534/1147-16", "/us/534/1147-13", "/us/534/1147-11", "/us/534/1147-01", "/us/534/1147-06", "/us/534/1147-07", "/us/534/1147-15", "/us/534/1147-04", "/us/534/1147-14", "/us/534/1147-08", "/us/534/1147-05" ] }, { "cite": "532 U.S. 931", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9315009, 9314948, 9314725, 9314661, 9314695, 9314631, 9314793, 9314822, 9315113, 9314863, 9315060, 9314585, 9314909 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/532/0931-11", "/us/532/0931-10", "/us/532/0931-05", "/us/532/0931-03", "/us/532/0931-04", "/us/532/0931-02", "/us/532/0931-06", "/us/532/0931-07", "/us/532/0931-13", "/us/532/0931-08", "/us/532/0931-12", "/us/532/0931-01", "/us/532/0931-09" ] }, { "cite": "522 U.S. 1078", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11601344, 11601924, 11601414, 11601319, 11601258, 11600907, 11601210, 11601841, 11601466, 11601497, 11601018, 11601659, 11601756, 11601565 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/522/1078-06", "/us/522/1078-14", "/us/522/1078-07", "/us/522/1078-05", "/us/522/1078-04", "/us/522/1078-01", "/us/522/1078-03", "/us/522/1078-13", "/us/522/1078-08", "/us/522/1078-09", "/us/522/1078-02", "/us/522/1078-11", "/us/522/1078-12", "/us/522/1078-10" ] }, { "cite": "529 U.S. 1006", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9511302, 9511370, 9511339, 9511050, 9511184, 9511155, 9511412, 9511220, 9511127, 9511032, 9511482, 9511259, 9511454, 9511096 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/529/1006-09", "/us/529/1006-11", "/us/529/1006-10", "/us/529/1006-02", "/us/529/1006-06", "/us/529/1006-05", "/us/529/1006-12", "/us/529/1006-07", "/us/529/1006-04", "/us/529/1006-01", "/us/529/1006-14", "/us/529/1006-08", "/us/529/1006-13", "/us/529/1006-03" ] }, { "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": "537 U.S. 1010", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9289472, 9289536, 9289667, 9289444, 9289578, 9289419, 9289326, 9289502, 9289359, 9289394, 9289622, 9289342 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/537/1010-07", "/us/537/1010-09", "/us/537/1010-12", "/us/537/1010-06", "/us/537/1010-10", "/us/537/1010-05", "/us/537/1010-01", "/us/537/1010-08", "/us/537/1010-03", "/us/537/1010-04", "/us/537/1010-11", "/us/537/1010-02" ] }, { "cite": "523 U.S. 1142", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11562560, 11562464, 11562626, 11562529, 11562501, 11562406, 11562376, 11562665, 11562347, 11562476, 11562444, 11562361, 11562394, 11562427, 11562590 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/523/1142-12", "/us/523/1142-08", "/us/523/1142-14", "/us/523/1142-11", "/us/523/1142-10", "/us/523/1142-05", "/us/523/1142-03", "/us/523/1142-15", "/us/523/1142-01", "/us/523/1142-09", "/us/523/1142-07", "/us/523/1142-02", "/us/523/1142-04", "/us/523/1142-06", "/us/523/1142-13" ] }, { "cite": "544 U.S. 909", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5883840, 5878466, 5894978, 5901510, 5894599, 3537800, 5880967, 5898989, 5864815, 5911695, 5900303, 5911316, 5867098, 5893946 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/544/0909-08", "/us/544/0909-04", "/us/544/0909-01", "/us/544/0909-03", "/us/544/0909-12", "/us/544/0909-06", "/us/544/0909-13", "/us/544/0909-07", "/us/544/0909-10", "/us/544/0909-11", "/us/544/0909-09", "/us/544/0909-05", "/us/544/0909-14", "/us/544/0909-02" ] }, { "cite": "599 S.E.2d 515", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12631478 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "530", "parenthetical": "\"[N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1214(a)] neither prescribes nor proscribes any particular method of achieving random selection.\" (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/599/0515-01" ] }, { "cite": "522 U.S. 1096", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11610818, 11610434, 11610661, 11610951, 11610635, 11610860, 11610539, 11610607, 11610708, 11610905, 11610583, 11610744, 11610457, 11610492 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/522/1096-11", "/us/522/1096-01", "/us/522/1096-08", "/us/522/1096-14", "/us/522/1096-07", "/us/522/1096-12", "/us/522/1096-04", "/us/522/1096-06", "/us/522/1096-09", "/us/522/1096-13", "/us/522/1096-05", "/us/522/1096-10", "/us/522/1096-02", "/us/522/1096-03" ] }, { "cite": "546 U.S. 830", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5908388, 5877157, 5965639, 5991912, 5911081, 6017962, 5986893, 6006128, 3806768, 5881009, 5989878, 5985271, 3809625, 5970362 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/546/0830-10", "/us/546/0830-12", "/us/546/0830-03", "/us/546/0830-13", "/us/546/0830-06", "/us/546/0830-07", "/us/546/0830-02", "/us/546/0830-14", "/us/546/0830-01", "/us/546/0830-04", "/us/546/0830-11", "/us/546/0830-05", "/us/546/0830-09", "/us/546/0830-08" ] }, { "cite": "516 U.S. 1079", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 328513, 326369, 325636, 325094, 328102, 324199, 326410, 328174, 328339, 325622, 328409, 325979, 327804, 326687 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/516/1079-08", "/us/516/1079-10", "/us/516/1079-02", "/us/516/1079-04", "/us/516/1079-01", "/us/516/1079-03", "/us/516/1079-05", "/us/516/1079-06", "/us/516/1079-12", "/us/516/1079-14", "/us/516/1079-09", "/us/516/1079-11", "/us/516/1079-07", "/us/516/1079-13" ] }, { "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": "536 U.S. 930", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1254400, 1255201, 1254912, 1255398, 1255087, 1254705, 1254609, 1254996, 1254485, 1255094, 1254871, 1254614, 1254524, 1255069 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/536/0930-02", "/us/536/0930-03", "/us/536/0930-01", "/us/536/0930-13", "/us/536/0930-08", "/us/536/0930-09", "/us/536/0930-07", "/us/536/0930-11", "/us/536/0930-14", "/us/536/0930-05", "/us/536/0930-06", "/us/536/0930-04", "/us/536/0930-10", "/us/536/0930-12" ] }, { "cite": "616 S.E.2d 515", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633574 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "525", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Nobles, 350 N.C. 483, 501, 515 S.E.2d 885, 896 (1999) (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/616/0515-01" ] }, { "cite": "527 U.S. 1018", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1248165, 1248400, 1248529, 1248208, 1248115, 1248112 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/527/1018-03", "/us/527/1018-02", "/us/527/1018-04", "/us/527/1018-06", "/us/527/1018-05", "/us/527/1018-01" ] }, { "cite": "510 U.S. 948", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 231682, 233093, 235270, 233531, 235692, 232590, 231374, 230994, 235740, 230899, 232630, 234584, 234875, 233052 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/510/0948-14", "/us/510/0948-04", "/us/510/0948-12", "/us/510/0948-11", "/us/510/0948-13", "/us/510/0948-10", "/us/510/0948-08", "/us/510/0948-09", "/us/510/0948-03", "/us/510/0948-01", "/us/510/0948-06", "/us/510/0948-07", "/us/510/0948-02", "/us/510/0948-05" ] }, { "cite": "537 U.S. 1133", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9350848, 9351014, 9350695, 9350664, 9350727, 9350889, 9351079, 9350953, 9351145, 9351342, 9351407, 9351279, 9351220, 9350807 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/537/1133-05", "/us/537/1133-08", "/us/537/1133-02", "/us/537/1133-01", "/us/537/1133-03", "/us/537/1133-06", "/us/537/1133-09", "/us/537/1133-07", "/us/537/1133-10", "/us/537/1133-13", "/us/537/1133-14", "/us/537/1133-12", "/us/537/1133-11", "/us/537/1133-04" ] }, { "cite": "464 S.E.2d 272", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "283", "parenthetical": "holding death penalty not disproportionate when defendant chose to kill a person \"who had treated him with kindness and compassion\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 796087 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "329", "parenthetical": "holding death penalty not disproportionate when defendant chose to kill a person \"who had treated him with kindness and compassion\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0312-01" ] }, { "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", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "34" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4730916 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "231" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0179-01" ] }, { "cite": "516 S.E.2d 131", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "143", "parenthetical": "citing Lyons, 343 N.C. at 27-28, 468 S.E.2d at 217" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 131941 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "538", "parenthetical": "citing Lyons, 343 N.C. at 27-28, 468 S.E.2d at 217" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "449 S.E.2d, 371", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 N.C. 129", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2519325 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/338/0129-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 S.E.2d 204", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "217" }, { "page": "217" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "343 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 798864 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "27" }, { "page": "27-28" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/343/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 S.E.2d 252", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "258", "parenthetical": "concluding that sufficient evidence of premeditation existed when the revolver defendant used in the murder \"had to be cocked each time before it could be fired\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 186", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2570891 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "196", "parenthetical": "concluding that sufficient evidence of premeditation existed when the revolver defendant used in the murder \"had to be cocked each time before it could be fired\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0186-01" ] }, { "cite": "439 S.E.2d 547", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "575" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 N.C. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2530932 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "297" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/335/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "305 S.E.2d 703", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "717" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 26", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4763650 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "46" } ], "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, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "183" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 674", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4761257 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "694" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0674-01" ] }, { "cite": "319 S.E.2d 163", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "172" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4686205 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "479" } ], "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, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "194" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 669", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4758195 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "691" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0669-01" ] }, { "cite": "522 U.S. 900", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11525121, 11525092, 11524582, 11525031, 11524807, 11524710, 11524847, 11524689, 11524884, 11524761, 11524635, 11524924, 11524734, 11524959 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/522/0900-14", "/us/522/0900-13", "/us/522/0900-01", "/us/522/0900-12", "/us/522/0900-07", "/us/522/0900-04", "/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": "483 S.E.2d 396", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 N.C. 647", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 53878 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/345/0647-01" ] }, { "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, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "733" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4694780 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "237" } ], "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, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "668" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4741422 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "27" } ], "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, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "522" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "323 N.C. 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2566216 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "328" } ], "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, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "898" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 446", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511417 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "489" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0446-01" ] }, { "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": 5, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "162" }, { "page": "164" }, { "page": "164" }, { "parenthetical": "citations and internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2530367 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "240" }, { "page": "244" }, { "page": "244" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "443 U.S. 1306", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6198330 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1312-13" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/443/1306-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 U.S. 402", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6164747 ], "year": 1960, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "402", "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/362/0402-01" ] }, { "cite": "383 U.S. 375", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6171240 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "378" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/383/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "509 U.S. 389", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 355530 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "396", "parenthetical": "citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378 (1996)" }, { "page": "396" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/509/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 S.E.2d 577", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "580-81" }, { "page": "581", "parenthetical": "citation and internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558792 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "567" }, { "page": "568" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "546 S.E.2d 575", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "584", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "584-85" }, { "page": "585", "parenthetical": "alteration in original" }, { "page": "585", "parenthetical": "holding that evidence of treatment for depression and suicidal tendencies several months before trial did not constitute \"substantial evidence\" requiring the trial court to hold competency hearing" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 457", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135653 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "466", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "467" }, { "page": "467" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0457-01" ] }, { "cite": "533 S.E.2d 168", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "240", "parenthetical": "holding trial court properly refused to submit (f)(6) mitigator when there was evidence that defendant initially denied his role in shooting two police officers" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 684963 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "476", "parenthetical": "holding trial court properly refused to submit (f)(6) mitigator when there was evidence that defendant initially denied his role in shooting two police officers" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "488 S.E.2d 194", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "206", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "346 N.C. 443", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 139431 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "464", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/346/0443-01" ] }, { "cite": "469 U.S. 1230", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12108826, 12108839 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/469/1230-01", "/us/469/1230-02" ] }, { "cite": "320 S.E.2d 642", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "656" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4758280 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "23" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "517 S.E.2d 605", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "612-13", "parenthetical": "concluding that controverted and conflicting evidence did not entitle defendant to submission of the (f)(2) mitigating circumstance" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 776", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 131962 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "787-88", "parenthetical": "concluding that controverted and conflicting evidence did not entitle defendant to submission of the (f)(2) mitigating circumstance" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0776-01" ] }, { "cite": "558 S.E.2d 463", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "482-83" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 220002 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "103" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "565 S.E.2d 154", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "166-67" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 719", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 220071 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "736" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0719-01" ] }, { "cite": "296 S.E.2d 649", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "652", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560587 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "66", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "493 S.E.2d 264", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "279", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 66, 296 S.E.2d 649, 652 (1982) (citation omitted)" }, { "page": "279", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Noland, 312 N.C. 1, 23, 320 S.E.2d 642, 656 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1230 (1985)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "347 N.C. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 551151 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "301", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 66, 296 S.E.2d 649, 652 (1982) (citation omitted)" }, { "page": "302", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Noland, 312 N.C. 1, 23, 320 S.E.2d 642, 656 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1230 (1985)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/347/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "541 U.S. 944", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5878913, 5918562, 5913478, 5872903, 5871369, 5895147, 3634891, 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/541/0944-01", "/us/541/0944-12", "/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", "parenthetical": "citations and internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491669 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "377", "parenthetical": "citations and internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "408 S.E.2d 185", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "186-87" }, { "page": "186-87" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 771", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2555881 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "775-77" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0771-01" ] }, { "cite": "498 S.E.2d 611", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "613" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 214", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659930 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "217" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0214-01" ] }, { "cite": "400 S.E.2d 398", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "403", "parenthetical": "holding that the right to poll the jury is subject to waiver" }, { "parenthetical": "\"The purpose of polling the jury is to ensure that the jurors unanimously agree with and consent to the verdict at the time it is rendered.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2539317 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "198", "parenthetical": "holding that the right to poll the jury is subject to waiver" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 S.E.2d 697", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "702", "parenthetical": "explaining that a jury's verdict is \"complete\" when it is \"accepted by the court for its records\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 533", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575742 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "538", "parenthetical": "explaining that a jury's verdict is \"complete\" when it is \"accepted by the court for its records\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0533-01" ] }, { "cite": "510 U.S. 1198", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 230656, 230497, 234140, 230308, 231301, 230236, 231785, 230159, 233557, 235224, 232572, 233405, 234462, 234815 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/510/1198-05", "/us/510/1198-08", "/us/510/1198-09", "/us/510/1198-10", "/us/510/1198-07", "/us/510/1198-03", "/us/510/1198-01", "/us/510/1198-14", "/us/510/1198-11", "/us/510/1198-12", "/us/510/1198-04", "/us/510/1198-06", "/us/510/1198-13", "/us/510/1198-02" ] }, { "cite": "434 S.E.2d 180", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "183", "parenthetical": "\"Without anything in the record to show something else happened, we will assume the bailiff followed the court's instructions.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 609", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2529678 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "615", "parenthetical": "\"Without anything in the record to show something else happened, we will assume the bailiff followed the court's instructions.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0609-01" ] }, { "cite": "434 S.E.2d 840", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "848" }, { "page": "848" }, { "parenthetical": "citation and internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 467", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2528837 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "482-83" }, { "page": "482" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0467-01" ] }, { "cite": "532 U.S. 949", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9326336, 9326689, 9326628, 9326533, 9326246, 9326181, 9326218, 9326379, 9326476, 9326286, 9326072, 9326585, 9326427, 9326141, 9326110 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/532/0949-08", "/us/532/0949-15", "/us/532/0949-14", "/us/532/0949-12", "/us/532/0949-06", "/us/532/0949-04", "/us/532/0949-05", "/us/532/0949-09", "/us/532/0949-11", "/us/532/0949-07", "/us/532/0949-01", "/us/532/0949-13", "/us/532/0949-10", "/us/532/0949-03", "/us/532/0949-02" ] }, { "cite": "532 S.E.2d 773", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "785", "parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not err despite using outdated system of calling jurors because the \"random-selection requirement\" of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1214(a) was satisfied" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 531", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 685072 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "548-49", "parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not err despite using outdated system of calling jurors because the \"random-selection requirement\" of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1214(a) was satisfied" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0531-01" ] }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2985799 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "571", "parenthetical": "\"[N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1214(a)] neither prescribes nor proscribes any particular method of achieving random selection.\" (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/358/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "519 U.S. 828", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11611424, 11611236, 11611653, 11611718, 11611367, 11611530, 11611789, 11611758, 11611599, 11611282, 11611123, 11611479, 11611324, 11611167 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/519/0828-07", "/us/519/0828-03", "/us/519/0828-11", "/us/519/0828-12", "/us/519/0828-06", "/us/519/0828-09", "/us/519/0828-14", "/us/519/0828-13", "/us/519/0828-10", "/us/519/0828-04", "/us/519/0828-01", "/us/519/0828-08", "/us/519/0828-05", "/us/519/0828-02" ] }, { "cite": "464 S.E.2d 414", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "430-31" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 796105 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "227-28" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "525 U.S. 1124", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11221317, 11221030, 11221416, 11221496, 11221130, 11221163, 11221196, 11221453, 11221007, 11221073, 11221235, 11221367, 11221048, 11221274 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/525/1124-10", "/us/525/1124-02", "/us/525/1124-12", "/us/525/1124-14", "/us/525/1124-05", "/us/525/1124-06", "/us/525/1124-07", "/us/525/1124-13", "/us/525/1124-01", "/us/525/1124-04", "/us/525/1124-08", "/us/525/1124-11", "/us/525/1124-03", "/us/525/1124-09" ] }, { "cite": "502 S.E.2d 563", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "573" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 417", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659919 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "431" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0417-01" ] }, { "cite": "439 S.E.2d 760", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "764", "parenthetical": "\"[W]hatever incompleteness may exist in the record precludes defendant from showing that error occurred....\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 N.C. 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2526248 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "410", "parenthetical": "\"[W]hatever incompleteness may exist in the record precludes defendant from showing that error occurred....\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/335/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "604 S.E.2d 850", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "876", "parenthetical": "refusing to recognize violation of right to presence \"unless and until defendant demonstrates constitutional error on the record\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3801733 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "114", "parenthetical": "refusing to recognize violation of right to presence \"unless and until defendant demonstrates constitutional error on the record\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S.E.2d 353", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "357" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "274 N.C. 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560069 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "333" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/274/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "459 S.E.2d 747", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "756", "parenthetical": "concluding that the defendant failed to establish that any error occurred when portion of selection process for prospective jurors for defendant's capital trial took place outside his presence" }, { "page": "762" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 N.C. 488", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 790245 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "508", "parenthetical": "concluding that the defendant failed to establish that any error occurred when portion of selection process for prospective jurors for defendant's capital trial took place outside his presence" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/340/0488-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 S.E.2d 652", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "659", "parenthetical": "\"[I]t is well established in this State that an accused cannot waive his right to be present at every stage of his trial upon an indictment charging him with a capital felony.\" (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558305 ], "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "208", "parenthetical": "\"[I]t is well established in this State that an accused cannot waive his right to be present at every stage of his trial upon an indictment charging him with a capital felony.\" (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "497 U.S. 1021", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6268812, 6267060, 6268214, 6267352, 6267610, 6268507, 6267902, 6266778 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/497/1021-08", "/us/497/1021-02", "/us/497/1021-06", "/us/497/1021-03", "/us/497/1021-04", "/us/497/1021-07", "/us/497/1021-05", "/us/497/1021-01" ] }, { "cite": "381 S.E.2d 635", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "650-51", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "651" }, { "page": "649-55", "parenthetical": "analyzing various violations of the defendant's right to presence and concluding all were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2487626 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "29", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "27-36" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "461 S.E.2d 602", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "617", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 N.C. 263", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 793195 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "291", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/341/0263-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 S.E.2d 374", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "380", "parenthetical": "holding that admission of evidence in violation of Rule 404(b) was harmless error" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 519", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4772378 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "529", "parenthetical": "holding that admission of evidence in violation of Rule 404(b) was harmless error" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0519-01" ] }, { "cite": "405 S.E.2d 158", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "165-66", "parenthetical": "concluding the admission of evidence that the defendant had previously been convicted of a crime in violation of Rule 609 is reviewable for harmless error" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 108", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2556602 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "121", "parenthetical": "concluding the admission of evidence that the defendant had previously been convicted of a crime in violation of Rule 609 is reviewable for harmless error" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0108-01" ] }, { "cite": "432 S.E.2d 349", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "352" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 402", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2532283 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "408-09" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0402-01" ] }, { "cite": "118 S.E.2d 766", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "768", "parenthetical": "explaining that whether waiver occurs \"depend[s] largely upon the nature of the evidence and the circumstances of the particular case\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 297", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625922 ], "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "300", "parenthetical": "explaining that whether waiver occurs \"depend[s] largely upon the nature of the evidence and the circumstances of the particular case\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0297-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 S.E. 232", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1927, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "235" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N.C. 670", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217725 ], "year": 1927, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "675" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0670-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 S.E.2d 609", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1945, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "610", "parenthetical": "holding that an \"adverse party may . . . explain the evidence, or destroy its probative value, or even contradict it with other evidence,\" without risking waiver (quoting Shelton v. S. Ry. Co., 193 N.C. 670, 675, 139 S.E. 232, 235 (1927))" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "224 N.C. 846", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616237 ], "year": 1945, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "847-48", "parenthetical": "holding that an \"adverse party may . . . explain the evidence, or destroy its probative value, or even contradict it with other evidence,\" without risking waiver (quoting Shelton v. S. Ry. Co., 193 N.C. 670, 675, 139 S.E. 232, 235 (1927))" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/224/0846-01" ] }, { "cite": "555 S.E.2d 557", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "582" }, { "page": "582", "parenthetical": "holding that defendant's attempt on cross-examination to explain evidence given by a witness for the state did not result in waiver" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "354 N.C. 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 138413 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "408" }, { "page": "408" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/354/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 S. Ct. 2980", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "515 S.E.2d 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "896", "parenthetical": "alteration in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 131924 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "501", "parenthetical": "alteration in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 709", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3802205 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "720", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Nobles, 350 N.C. 483, 501, 515 S.E.2d 885, 896 (1999) (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0709-01" ] }, { "cite": "559 S.E.2d 5", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "for reasons stated in dissenting opinion, 148 N.C. App. at 318-29, 559 S.E.2d at 10-17 (Wynn, J., dissenting)" }, { "page": "10-17", "parenthetical": "Wynn, J., dissenting" }, { "parenthetical": "for reasons stated in dissenting opinion, 148 N.C. App. at 318-29, 559 S.E.2d at 10-17 (Wynn, J., dissenting)" }, { "page": "10-17", "parenthetical": "Wynn, J., dissenting" }, { "page": "10-17", "parenthetical": "Wynn, J., dissenting" }, { "page": "16-17", "parenthetical": "Wynn, J., dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "148 N.C. App. 310", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9365770 ], "weight": 6, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "for reasons stated in dissenting opinion, 148 N.C. App. at 318-29, 559 S.E.2d at 10-17 (Wynn, J., dissenting)" }, { "page": "318-29" }, { "parenthetical": "for reasons stated in dissenting opinion, 148 N.C. App. at 318-29, 559 S.E.2d at 10-17 (Wynn, J., dissenting)" }, { "page": "318-29" }, { "page": "318-29" }, { "page": "327-29" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/148/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "571 S.E.2d 583", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "for reasons stated in dissenting opinion, 148 N.C. App. at 318-29, 559 S.E.2d at 10-17 (Wynn, J., dissenting)" }, { "parenthetical": "for reasons stated in dissenting opinion, 148 N.C. App. at 318-29, 559 S.E.2d at 10-17 (Wynn, J., dissenting)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 418", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511532 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "for reasons stated in dissenting opinion, 148 N.C. App. at 318-29, 559 S.E.2d at 10-17 (Wynn, J., dissenting)" }, { "parenthetical": "for reasons stated in dissenting opinion, 148 N.C. App. at 318-29, 559 S.E.2d at 10-17 (Wynn, J., dissenting)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0418-01" ] }, { "cite": "501 S.E.2d 309", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "320", "parenthetical": "same" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659853 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "353", "parenthetical": "same" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "428 S.E.2d 118", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "133" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "333 N.C. 350", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2549203 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "379" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/333/0350-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 S.E.2d 430", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "435" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 724", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4720164 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "731" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0724-01" ] }, { "cite": "406 S.E.2d 876", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "893", "parenthetical": "holding that introducing evidence of act committed ten years earlier did not violate temporal proximity requirement" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2554614 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "307", "parenthetical": "holding that introducing evidence of act committed ten years earlier did not violate temporal proximity requirement" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0278-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 S.E.2d 422", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "427", "parenthetical": "noting that \"incarceration effectively explained] the remoteness in time\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 127", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4703969 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "134", "parenthetical": "noting that \"incarceration effectively explained] the remoteness in time\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0127-01" ] }, { "cite": "552 S.E.2d 596", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "610", "parenthetical": "\"It is proper to exclude time defendant spent in prison when determining whether prior acts are too remote.\" (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "354 N.C. 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 138508 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "91", "parenthetical": "\"It is proper to exclude time defendant spent in prison when determining whether prior acts are too remote.\" (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/354/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "525 U.S. 1180", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11237402, 11237542, 11237416, 11237480, 11237450, 11237391, 11237520, 11237620, 11237653, 11237590, 11237463, 11237434, 11237339, 11237500, 11237566 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/525/1180-03", "/us/525/1180-11", "/us/525/1180-04", "/us/525/1180-08", "/us/525/1180-06", "/us/525/1180-02", "/us/525/1180-10", "/us/525/1180-14", "/us/525/1180-15", "/us/525/1180-13", "/us/525/1180-07", "/us/525/1180-05", "/us/525/1180-01", "/us/525/1180-09", "/us/525/1180-12" ] }, { "cite": "501 S.E.2d 625", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "641-42", "parenthetical": "holding that evidence of a previous murder committed by the defendant satisfied the similarity requirement of Rule 404(b) when both the previous offense and that for which defendant was tried involved similar knife wounds and head trauma to the victim" }, { "page": "642", "parenthetical": "holding that introducing evidence of crime committed seventeen years earlier did not violate temporal proximity requirement" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659773 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "404-05", "parenthetical": "holding that evidence of a previous murder committed by the defendant satisfied the similarity requirement of Rule 404(b) when both the previous offense and that for which defendant was tried involved similar knife wounds and head trauma to the victim" }, { "page": "405" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "515 U.S. 1107", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1564320, 1564576, 1563909, 1563719, 1564552, 1564011, 1564333, 1564336, 1564048, 1563890, 1563703, 1564183, 1563705, 1563866, 1563675 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/515/1107-03", "/us/515/1107-07", "/us/515/1107-01", "/us/515/1107-08", "/us/515/1107-13", "/us/515/1107-09", "/us/515/1107-14", "/us/515/1107-12", "/us/515/1107-05", "/us/515/1107-10", "/us/515/1107-11", "/us/515/1107-04", "/us/515/1107-02", "/us/515/1107-15", "/us/515/1107-06" ] }, { "cite": "451 S.E.2d 157", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "167-68", "parenthetical": "holding that evidence of a previous assault committed by the defendant satisfied the similarity requirement of Rule 404(b) when both the previous offense and that for which the defendant was tried involved a blow above the right eye with a brick-like object" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 N.C. 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2518853 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "588-89", "parenthetical": "holding that evidence of a previous assault committed by the defendant satisfied the similarity requirement of Rule 404(b) when both the previous offense and that for which the defendant was tried involved a blow above the right eye with a brick-like object" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/338/0569-01" ] }, { "cite": "494 U.S. 1023", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 4836, 5158, 4882, 5207, 5176 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/494/1023-04", "/us/494/1023-03", "/us/494/1023-05", "/us/494/1023-02", "/us/494/1023-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 S.E.2d 470", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "481" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2492599 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "299" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0278-01" ] }, { "cite": "567 S.E.2d 120", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "123", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 150", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511282 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "154", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0150-01" ] }, { "cite": "389 S.E.2d 48", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "54", "parenthetical": "emphasis omitted in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5306215 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "278-79", "parenthetical": "emphasis omitted in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "566 S.E.2d 61", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "74", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79, 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990) (emphasis omitted in original)" }, { "page": "74-75", "parenthetical": "holding admission of prior bad acts not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 when trial court gave extensive limiting instruction regarding permissible uses of 404(b) evidence" }, { "page": "79" }, { "page": "79" }, { "page": "80" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 642", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 220086 ], "weight": 5, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "661", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79, 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990) (emphasis omitted in original)" }, { "page": "662" }, { "page": "670" }, { "page": "670" }, { "page": "671" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0642-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 2162, "char_count": 76538, "ocr_confidence": 0.76, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.5091775826606474e-07, "percentile": 0.8103061220943769 }, "sha256": "eb527abae5f6c992108dee9a98c6fefeb98ecd528a1d5865b151389d85b34136", "simhash": "1:872fc022762e3dfe", "word_count": 12278 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:19:48.141297+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justice HUDSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN SCOTT BADGETT" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Justice.\nOn 3 March 2003, John Scott Badgett (defendant) was indicted for the armed robbery and first-degree murder of Grover Arthur Kizer (victim). Defendant was tried capitally at the 19 April 2004 criminal session of Randolph County Superior Court. Defendant\u2019s conviction for first-degree murder was based on a theory of malice, premeditation, and deliberation, and the felony murder rule. Following a capital sentencing proceeding, the jury recommended a sentence of death. The trial court entered judgment accordingly and arrested judgment on the robbery conviction. Defendant gave notice of appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a).\nThe evidence admitted during the guilt-innocence phase of defendant\u2019s trial tended to show the following: On or about 20 November 2002, defendant went to the victim\u2019s house looking for a place to spend the night. The victim had allowed defendant and another friend to stay the night at his home a few weeks earlier. On this occasion, the victim again offered defendant shelter.\nAt some point in the evening the victim, who suffered from a mental disability, began complaining to defendant about his next-door neighbors. He explained to defendant his belief that the police had failed to respond adequately to complaints he had made against the neighbors. At some point, the victim began yelling about \u201cworkers of iniquity\u201d and pointing his finger at defendant.\nDefendant argued briefly with the victim, then opened a folding pocketknife and stabbed him in the neck. The stabbing severed the victim\u2019s right carotid artery and damaged his trachea, Adam\u2019s apple, and windpipe. As blood squirted from his neck, the victim ran to a telephone in his kitchen. Defendant followed the victim into the kitchen and slashed the victim\u2019s right arm with the pocketknife, leaving a deep wound. The victim picked up the telephone to call for help, but defendant pushed him away from the phone, knocking him to the floor. The victim fell prostrate, dying within a few minutes.\nOnce the victim was dead, defendant stole the victim\u2019s wallet containing his driver\u2019s license and five dollars in cash. Defendant then ransacked the victim\u2019s house, stealing a substantial amount of cash from a set of envelopes in the victim\u2019s bedroom, as well as a flashlight. Defendant then returned to his residence, where he hid evidence of the murder. Defendant later traded the murder weapon for five dollars worth of crack cocaine.\nA few days later, defendant returned to the victim\u2019s house and entered by using the stolen flashlight to break a glass door at the rear of the house. Defendant stole numerous collectable coins of value, some of which he later exchanged for drugs. Defendant also stole clothing, a butcher knife, a cigarette lighter bearing an inscription of the victim\u2019s name, a number of coins in saving containers, wrist watches, and a pocket watch. Finally, he stole keys to the victim\u2019s house and vehicles. Defendant then left in the victim\u2019s truck, leaving the house in disarray with coins strewn across the floor.\nDefendant became a suspect when the stolen truck linked him to the murder. Police had recovered the stolen truck, which contained numerous collectable coins belonging to the victim. When police apprehended defendant, he was in possession of one of the victim\u2019s coins. Police brought defendant to the Asheboro Police Department for questioning. Defendant initially lied about the murder, but admitted to staying at the victim\u2019s home approximately two weeks earlier and riding in the victim\u2019s truck. Defendant eventually gave police a signed confession, which described the details of the murder.\nDefendant\u2019s description of the murder matched the evidence police later recovered from defendant\u2019s residence. This evidence consisted of most of the items defendant stole from the victim, as well as defendant\u2019s blood-stained shoes from the night of the murder. Additionally, police later recovered the murder weapon and traced it to defendant.\nThe details of defendant\u2019s confession also matched the story defendant told James Parker and Randy Marks, two individuals with whom defendant was incarcerated at different times following his arrest. According to Parker, defendant admitted that he had stabbed the victim because the victim was \u201crunning his mouth.\u201d\nThe state also introduced evidence that defendant had killed another individual, J.C. Chriscoe, in October 1992. On that occasion, defendant had attempted to obtain marijuana from Chriscoe\u2019s roommate, who sold him tobacco instead. When defendant went to confront Chriscoe\u2019s roommate, Chriscoe answered the door and quickly became angry with defendant. The two exchanged blows, and defendant ran up a flight of stairs to the second floor of the house. Chriscoe, who was unarmed, followed defendant into a bedroom. The fight ended when defendant stabbed Chriscoe in the neck with a folding pocketknife. Defendant confessed the details of this killing to police and provided them with a statement. Police were able to recover the pocketknife used to kill Chriscoe in the neighborhood in which defendant lived at the time. Defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for killing Chriscoe.\nDefendant offered no evidence in the guilt-innocence phase. Additional evidence admitted during the capital sentencing proceeding tended to show the following:\nAfter defendant pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter in 1993 for killing Chriscoe, defendant received counseling while incarcerated to address anger management issues. At trial, defendant described the counseling program as \u201ckind of silly,\u201d and admitted that he eventually decided not to complete it.\nAfter serving his sentence for manslaughter, defendant took up residence in Randolph County. Within six months, he resumed his use of alcohol and cocaine. Defendant sought and obtained treatment for substance abuse and received anger management counseling. After completing the treatment program, defendant stayed at a halfway house and later a boarding house. He was asked to leave that location, however, and afterwards had no place to live. After a brief stay with an acquaintance, defendant began sleeping in a storage room next to a grocery store. On one occasion, however, the victim allowed defendant to sleep in his house along with Tim Morris, a friend of defendant\u2019s from prison who knew the victim. On the night defendant killed the victim, defendant had come to the victim\u2019s house seeking shelter from the cold November temperatures outside.\nAfter being charged with murder in the instant case, defendant once again sought counseling. Defendant met with a psychologist, Dr. Thomas Ansbro, and two psychiatrists, Dr. Thomas Gresalfi and Dr. Elizabeth Pekarek. All three mental health care providers concluded that defendant suffered from irritability, anger management problems, and depression. Additionally, Dr. Pekarek tentatively diagnosed defendant with Tourette\u2019s Disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, and prominent antisocial traits. During one of his follow-up visits, however, defendant informed Dr. Pekarek that he had stabbed another inmate after waiting for hours for an ideal opportunity to commit the assault. Acknowledging that such planned, deliberate attacks were inconsistent with intermittent explosive disorder, Dr. Pekarek retreated from her initial diagnosis of intermittent explosive disorder. Neither Dr. Ansbro nor Dr. Gresalfi diagnosed defendant with intermittent explosive disorder.\nDefendant admitted in open court that he killed the victim and recounted the details of the murder, which matched his previous confession to police. In addition, defendant admitted that he: (1) watched the victim die after pushing him to the floor; (2) cleaned the victim\u2019s blood off the murder weapon in the victim\u2019s sink; and (3) asked his cellmate\u2019s mother to retrieve the victim\u2019s wallet after he was arrested for the murder.\nDefendant admitted to the following violent acts over the previous seventeen years: (1) assaulting a coworker with a barstool in 1987; (2) assaulting a houseguest with a barstool in 1991; (3) assaulting an individual at a party in 1992; (4) fatally stabbing Chriscoe in 1992; (4) stabbing another inmate while in prison in 1994; (5) assaulting another- inmate in the head in 1997; (6) assaulting another individual in 2000; (7) murdering the victim in 2002; and (8) stabbing another inmate while in jail awaiting trial in the instant case.\nDefendant concluded his direct testimony in the penalty phase with the following statement: \u201cI just would like this to stop somewhere. You have the power to stop the seventeen-year-span of violence that I\u2019ve, left behind. I\u2019m just tired of causing everyone pain.\u201d This implicit request for the death penalty was consistent with defendant\u2019s earlier behavior. Prior to trial, defendant wrote numerous letters to the trial court and the Randolph County District Attorney expressing his desire for a speedy trial resulting in a death sentence.\nAdditional facts and descriptions of events at trial, as necessary to an understanding of defendant\u2019s arguments, are set forth below.\nGUILT-INNOCENCE PHASE\nDefendant first contends the trial court erred by denying his motion in limine to exclude evidence related to defendant\u2019s 1992 killing of J.C. Chriscoe under N.C. R. Evid. 404(b). After thoroughly comparing the facts of the 1992 killing with those of the instant case, the trial court found that \u201cthere are sufficient similarities to allow the evidence to come in under [Rule 404(b)] and that it would be probative for the jury to hear [evidence of the 1992 killing] in order to prove intent or preparation or plan, motive, perhaps even absence of mistake.\u201d On appeal, defendant does not assign error or otherwise argue to this Court that it was error to admit this evidence as proof of intent, preparation, plan, motive, or absence of mistake. Rather, defendant argues only that the prior killing of J.C. Chriscoe was too dissimilar and remote in time to be admitted under Rule 404(b), and that any probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to defendant. Defendant\u2019s argument is without merit.\nN.C. R. Evid. 404(b) provides:\nEvidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident.\nThis Court has recognized that \u201cRule 404(b) is a \u2018rule of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts by a defendant, subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.\u2019 \u201d State v. Hyatt, 355 N.C. 642, 661, 566 S.E.2d 61, 74 (2002) (quoting State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79, 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990) (emphasis omitted in original)), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1133 (2003). The Rule, however, is \u201cconstrained by the requirements of similarity and temporal proximity.\u201d State v. Al-Bayyinah, 356 N.C. 150, 154, 567 S.E.2d 120, 123 (2002) (citations omitted). \u201cWhen the features of the earlier act are dissimilar from those of the offense with which the defendant is currently charged, such evidence lacks probative value.\u201d State v. Artis, 325 N.C. 278, 299, 384 S.E.2d 470, 481 (1989), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1023 (1990). Similarly, \u201c[w]hen otherwise similar offenses are distanced by significant stretches of time, commonalities become less striking, and the probative value of the analogy attaches less to the acts than to the character of the actor.\u201d Id.\nIn the instant case, the admission of evidence of the 1992 killing of Chriscoe satisfied both the similarity and temporal requirements of Rule 404(b). With respect to the similarity requirement, the murder in the instant case and the 1992 killing exhibited remarkable parallels. Both crimes involved a fatal stab wound to an unarmed victim\u2019s neck with a folding pocketknife, which occurred during an argument with the victim in the victim\u2019s home. We conclude that these crimes are sufficiently similar for purposes of Rule 404(b). See State v. Carter, 338 N.C. 569, 588-89, 451 S.E.2d 157, 167-68 (1994) (holding that evidence of a previous assault committed by the defendant satisfied the similarity requirement of Rule 404(b) when both the previous offense and that for which the defendant was tried involved a blow above the right eye with a brick-like object), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1107 (1995); see also State v. Hipps, 348 N.C. 377, 404-05, 501 S.E.2d 625, 641-42 (1998) (holding that evidence of a previous murder committed by the defendant satisfied the similarity requirement of Rule 404(b) when both the previous offense and that for which defendant was tried involved similar knife wounds and head trauma to the victim), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1180 (1999).\nAs to the temporal proximity requirement, the trial court may properly exclude prison time resulting from the previous conviction in its determination of whether that conviction is too remote in time to the present crime. State v. Lloyd, 354 N.C. 76, 91, 552 S.E.2d 596, 610 (2001) (\u201cIt is proper to exclude time defendant spent in prison when determining whether prior acts are too remote.\u201d (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also, e.g., State v. Riddick, 316 N.C. 127, 134, 340 S.E.2d 422, 427 (1986) (noting that \u201cincarceration effectively explained] the remoteness in time\u201d). Here, defendant was in prison for five of the ten years between the 1992 killing and the 2002 murder in the present case, leaving only five years between the two crimes for purposes of the temporal requirement. As a result, the introduction of the challenged evidence satisfied the temporal requirement of Rule 404(b). Cf. Hipps, 348 N.C. at 405, 501 S.E.2d at 642 (holding that introducing evidence of crime committed seventeen years earlier did not violate temporal proximity requirement); State v. Stager, 329 N.C. 278, 307, 406 S.E.2d 876, 893 (1991) (holding that introducing evidence of act committed ten years earlier did not violate temporal proximity requirement).\nDefendant further argues, however, that even if evidence of the 1992 killing is admissible under Rule 404(b), the trial court should have excluded it under N.C. R. Evid. 403. Under Rule 403, \u201cevidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.\u201d The exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 is a matter generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court, State v. Mason, 315 N.C. 724, 731, 340 S.E.2d 430, 435 (1986), which is left undisturbed unless the trial court\u2019s ruling \u201cis manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.\u201d State v. Syriani, 333 N.C. 350, 379, 428 S.E.2d 118, 133, cert. denied, 510 U.S. 948 (1993).\nHere, the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403 by admitting evidence of the 1992 killing of Chriscoe. Rather, on each occasion in which evidence of Chriscoe\u2019s killing was offered, the trial court guarded against the possibility of unfair prejudice by instructing the jury to consider such evidence for the limited purposes allowed by Rule 404(b). These limiting instructions also specifically admonished the jury not to consider the challenged evidence on the issue of defendant\u2019s character. See, e.g., Hyatt, 355 N.C. at 662, 566 S.E.2d at 74-75 (holding admission of prior bad acts not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 when trial court gave extensive limiting instruction regarding permissible uses of 404(b) evidence); State v. Lemons, 348 N.C. 335, 353, 501 S.E.2d 309, 320 (1998) (same), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 527 U.S. 1018 (1999). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the admission of this evidence.\nDefendant next argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that defendant had been convicted of manslaughter for killing Chriscoe. At trial, the state was permitted to introduce testimony from Detective Jim Briles indicating that defendant had previously been \u201cconvicted\u201d of voluntary manslaughter. Defendant argues that such evidence is not admissible under Rule 404(b), and that North Carolina Rule of Evidence 609 only allows certain evidence related to a prior conviction for the limited purpose of impeaching a witness. Thus, defendant contends, under State v. Wilkerson, 356 N.C. 418, 571 S.E.2d 583, rev\u2019g per curiam, 148 N.C. App. 310, 559 S.E.2d 5 (2002) (for reasons stated in dissenting opinion, 148 N.C. App. at 318-29, 559 S.E.2d at 10-17 (Wynn, J., dissenting)), evidence of his prior conviction for manslaughter was inadmissible since he did not testify at trial.\nAs a preliminary matter, we pause to consider the state\u2019s contention that defendant waived this argument. The state first argues the waiver rule applies to the introduction of evidence of defendant\u2019s conviction because the same evidence was later admitted without objection. Though \u201c \u2018[i]t is well established that the admission of evidence without objection waives prior or subsequent objection to the admission of evidence of a similar character,\u2019 \u201d State v. Augustine, 359 N.C. 709, 720, 616 S.E.2d 515, 525 (2005) (quoting State v. Nobles, 350 N.C. 483, 501, 515 S.E.2d 885, 896 (1999) (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, - U.S., 126 S. Ct. 2980 (2006), this rule is inapplicable here.\nIn the instant case, Detective Briles testified to defendant\u2019s prior conviction for killing Chriscoe, at which time defendant promptly interrupted this testimony by objecting. The trial court overruled defendant\u2019s objection and allowed Detective Briles to finish his sentence uninterrupted. Detective Briles then informed the jury that defendant had been convicted of manslaughter. Thus, the testimony admitted was the same testimony to which defendant had raised the objection overruled by the trial court, and not \u201clater testimony . . . accepted without objection\u201d as the state contends. As such, waiver did not occur.\nThe state also contends that defendant\u2019s reference to his prior conviction in closing argument amounts to waiver of his earlier objection to Detective Briles\u2019 testimony concerning defendant\u2019s conviction. This Court has previously held, however, that \u201c[a]n objecting party does not waive its objection to evidence the party contends is inadmissible when that party seeks to explain, impeach, or destroy its value.\u201d State v. Anthony, 354 N.C. 372, 408, 555 S.E.2d 557, 582 (2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 930 (2002); see also State v. Godwin, 224 N.C. 846, 847-48, 32 S.E.2d 609, 610 (1945) (holding that an \u201cadverse party may . . . explain the evidence, or destroy its probative value, or even contradict it with other evidence,\u201d without risking waiver (quoting Shelton v. S. Ry. Co., 193 N.C. 670, 675, 139 S.E. 232, 235 (1927))). This corollary to the waiver rule \u201crepresents a commendable effort to rescue objecting counsel from the dilemma ... of leaving the objectionable evidence unexplained and unrebutted or losing the benefit of an objection by pursuing the matter further on cross-examination or by other evidence.\u201d 1 Kenneth S. Broun, Brandis & Broun on North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 22, at 94 (6th ed. 2004) [hereinafter Broun]. To that end, this Court has looked to whether \u201ccounsel was making a reasonable and bona fide effort at explanation or denial, or was simply producing additional evidence of the facts that had already been testified to over an objection.\u201d Id.) see also State v. Aldridge, 254 N.C. 297, 300, 118 S.E.2d 766, 768 (1961) (explaining that whether waiver occurs \u201cdepend[s] largely upon the nature of the evidence and the circumstances of the particular case\u201d).\nOn these facts, defendant\u2019s reference to his prior conviction in closing argument did not result in waiver. As the trial court had admitted evidence of defendant\u2019s previous conviction, defendant was entitled to make a reasonable and bona fide effort to explain and minimize the impact of this evidence in closing argument without risking waiver. We therefore conclude that counsel\u2019s reference to defendant\u2019s manslaughter conviction in closing argument did not waive defendant\u2019s earlier objection to the admission of the same evidence. See Anthony, 354 N.C. at 408, 555 S.E.2d at 582 (holding that defendant\u2019s attempt on cross-examination to explain evidence given by a witness for the state did not result in waiver).\nTurning to defendant\u2019s argument, we observe that the introduction of evidence that defendant had previously been convicted of manslaughter was error in light of Wilkerson, 356 N.C. 418, 571 S.E.2d 583, rev\u2019g per curiam, 148 N.C. App. 310, 559 S.E.2d 5 (2002) (for reasons stated in dissenting opinion, 148 N.C. App. at 318-29, 559 S.E.2d at 10-17 (Wynn, J., dissenting)). In Wilkerson, we adopted the dissenting opinion of the Court of Appeals, which concluded that evidence of the defendant\u2019s prior convictions was inadmissible where the state had also introduced evidence of the underlying facts and circumstances of the convictions. 148 N.C. App. at 318-29, 559 S.E.2d at 10-17 (Wynn, J., dissenting). Thus, although Rule 609 may permit certain evidence of a defendant\u2019s prior conviction to be admitted if the defendant testifies, see, e.g., State v. Lynch, 334 N.C. 402, 408-09, 432 S.E.2d 349, 352 (1993), it is error to admit evidence of the defendant\u2019s prior conviction when the defendant does not testify, see Wilkerson, 148 N.C. App. at 327-29, 559 S.E.2d at 16-17 (Wynn, J., dissenting). See generally Broun \u00a7 94, at 272 n.164 (noting that Wilkerson \u201cseems to remove any doubt with regard to this issue\u201d). Here, because defendant did not testify during the guilt-innocence phase, it was error to admit evidence from Detective Briles that defendant had been \u201cconvicted\u201d of manslaughter for the 1992 killing of Chriscoe.\nThe improper admission of a defendant\u2019s prior conviction is not, however, reversible per se. See State v. Ross, 329 N.C. 108, 121, 405 S.E.2d 158, 165-66 (1991) (concluding the admission of evidence that the defendant had previously been convicted of a crime in violation of Rule 609 is reviewable for harmless error); State v. McKoy, 317 N.C. 519, 529, 347 S.E.2d 374, 380 (1986) (holding that admission of evidence in violation of Rule 404(b) was harmless error). Rather, \u201c[defendant has the burden under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1443[a] of demonstrating that but for the erroneous admission of this evidence [in violation of Rule 404(b)], there is a reasonable possibility that the jury would have reached a verdict of not guilty.\u201d State v. Burr, 341 N.C. 263, 291, 461 S.E.2d 602, 617 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1123 (1996).\nThere was no dispute at trial that defendant killed the victim by stabbing him in the neck. Defendant authorized his trial attorneys to admit that fact during the opening statements of counsel. Indeed, defendant\u2019s only defense during the guilt-innocence phase was that he lacked the requisite intent for first-degree murder. Defendant asserts that the evidence of his prior conviction \u201chelped convince the jury that the homicide was first-degree murder and not a lesser crime.\u201d We disagree.\nThe jury heard myriad evidence that defendant killed Chriscoe in 1992, including that defendant confessed the crime to police. In light of this overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence, defendant\u2019s argument that the trial court\u2019s admission of the bare fact of his previous manslaughter conviction materially impacted the jury\u2019s decision must necessarily fail. Because defendant has failed to demonstrate any reasonable possibility that the jury would have reached a different result had the evidence been excluded, see N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1443(a) (2005), the trial court\u2019s admission of defendant\u2019s 1993 manslaughter conviction was harmless.\nDefendant next argues that the trial court deprived him of his right to presence under the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution of North Carolina, which provides in pertinent part: \u201cIn all criminal prosecutions, every person charged with crime has the right ... to confront the accusers and witnesses with other testimony . . . .\u201d N.C. Const, art. I, \u00a7 23. \u201cAlthough the United States Supreme Court has stated that the confrontation clause of the federal constitution guarantees each criminal defendant the fundamental right to personal presence at all critical stages of the trial, our state constitutional right of confrontation has been interpreted as being broader in scope, guaranteeing the right of every accused to be present at every stage of his trial.\u201d State v. Huff, 325 N.C. 1, 29, 381 S.E.2d 635, 650-51 (1989) (citations omitted), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 497 U.S. 1021 (1990). Moreover, \u201c[w]e have interpreted the state constitutional protection afforded the capital defendant as being even broader, guaranteeing the accused not only the right to be present at each and every stage of trial, but also providing that defendant\u2019s right to be present cannot be waived, and imposing on the trial court the duty to insure defendant\u2019s presence at trial.\u201d Id. at 29, 381 S.E.2d at 651; State v. Moore, 275 N.C. 198, 208, 166 S.E.2d 652, 659 (1969) (\u201c[I]t is well established in this State that an accused cannot waive his right to be present at every stage of his trial upon an indictment charging him with a capital felony.\u201d (citations omitted)).\nDefendant argues that his right to presence was violated when the clerk allegedly drew random names from the pool of prospective jurors outside of defendant\u2019s presence. The first instance occurred on 21 April 2004, when defendant was present in the courtroom. The following colloquy took place:\nTHE COURT: Okay. We have all the jurors here. Now how do you \u2014 Counsel, how do you wish to draw the next twelve names? Do you want her to do that in here and then we can just have the clerk go to the jury pool room and call those twelve names out and then we move them to this other room, or do you want to bring them \u2014 Any preference?\nMR. BELL [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No preference, [y]our Honor.\nTHE COURT: All right then, Ms. Eubanks, when you get finished you can just go to the jury room and call out the names of the next twelve, and then Mr. Hill can take them to the jury room over here.\nThe second instance occurred on 23 April 2004, with defendant again present in the courtroom:\nTHE COURT: . . . We\u2019ve selected eight jurors so far. My initial thought is to call out twelve more names, which would give us eighteen for today, and then send everybody else home till Monday morning. Do you think that will be sufficient?\nMR. ROOSE [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, sir. I was looking at my \u2014 I kind of invented this little log that I really enjoy. We talked to fourteen on Wednesday, which is when we went all day. Yesterday was slower with the orientation and everything. So I\u2019d say eighteen, I don\u2019t think we\u2019re going to run out if we have eighteen here.\nTHE COURT: Okay. Then Mr. \u2014 If you\u2019ll get Mr. Hill twelve new names out of the ones that are in the jury assembly room, and then we\u2019ll call those names and have them stay. Well, let\u2019s see. We probably won\u2019t get through six \u2014 Do you think we\u2019d get through six by lunch time?\nTHE CLERK: No. Sorry.\nTHE COURT: Okay. Here\u2019s what we\u2019ll do then. Pick out, call out twelve names, tell them to be back after lunch, say around 1:30, 1:45, something like that. Then the remainder that have not been called out will not have to come back until Monday morning at 9:30.\nThe third instance occurred on 26 April 2004, and again, defendant was present in the courtroom. The trial judge asked the clerk to draw seven more names of prospective jurors:\nTHE CLERK: We\u2019ve got Number Eleven.\nTHE COURT: Oh, we do. Okay. I\u2019m sorry.\n-THE CLERK: Yeah, we have Number Eleven.\nTHE COURT: Okay. I\u2019m sorry. My fault. So we only have one more.\nTHE CLERK: And then ever how many alternates you\u2019re going to have.\nTHE COURT: Okay. Any suggestions from counsel?\nMR. BELL [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I think twelve would be a gracious plenty for the morning, [y]our Honor, please.\nTHE COURT: Okay. All right. Let\u2019s do that then.\nTHE CLERK: You want me to pull seven more?\nTHE COURT: Pull seven more, send everybody else home until 2:00. Tell them to report back at 2:00.\nNothing in the record suggests that the clerk failed to draw prospective jurors at random, in open court, and in defendant\u2019s presence. In essence, defendant\u2019s theory that the clerk could have failed to properly carry out this routine task \u201crests on pure speculation.\u201d State v. Daughtry, 340 N.C. 488, 508, 459 S.E.2d 747, 756 (1995) (concluding that the defendant failed to establish that any error occurred when portion of selection process for prospective jurors for defendant\u2019s capital trial took place outside his presence), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1079 (1996). Accordingly, as in prior cases involving a capital defendant\u2019s unwaivable right to presence, \u201c[w]e will not assume error \u2018when none appears on the record.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 517, 459 S.E.2d at 762 (quoting State v. Williams, 274 N.C. 328, 333, 163 S.E.2d 353, 357 (1968)); see also State v. Thompson, 359 N.C. 77, 114, 604 S.E.2d 850, 876 (2004) (refusing to recognize violation of right to presence \u201cunless and until defendant demonstrates constitutional error on the record\u201d), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 830 (2005); State v. Adams, 335 N.C. 401, 410, 439 S.E.2d 760, 764 (1994) (\u201c[W]hatever incompleteness may exist in the record precludes defendant from showing that error occurred....\u201d), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1096 (1998).\nEven assuming that the clerk\u2019s random draw was not performed in defendant\u2019s presence, however, this fact does not necessarily entitle defendant to a new trial. Although a capital defendant\u2019s state constitutional right to presence is unwaivable, these errors are subject to harmless error review. State v. Bonnett, 348 N.C. 417, 431, 502 S.E.2d 563, 573 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1124 (1999); State v. Buckner, 342 N.C. 198, 227-28, 464 S.E.2d 414, 430-31 (1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 828 (1996). N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1214(a) governs the clerk\u2019s selection of potential jurors, and simply requires the clerk to \u201ccall jurors from the panel by a system of random selection which precludes advance knowledge of the identity of the next juror to be called.\u201d While the instant record does not indicate that the clerk formally spoke the names of prospective jurors on the record, the clerk nevertheless drew names of prospective jurors at random, in open court, and in defendant\u2019s presence. See State v. Tirado, 358 N.C. 551, 571, 599 S.E.2d 515, 530 (2004) (\u201c[N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1214(a)] neither prescribes nor proscribes any particular method of achieving random selection.\u201d (citation omitted)), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 909 (2005); State v. Smith, 352 N.C. 531, 548-49, 532 S.E.2d 773, 785 (2000) (concluding that trial court did not err despite using outdated system of calling jurors because the \u201crandom-selection requirement\u201d of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1214(a) was satisfied), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 949 (2001). Accordingly, the trial court did not err by permitting the clerk to use this method to draw names of prospective jurors from the jury panel.\nDefendant also argues that the bailiffs reminders to prospective jurors to refrain from discussing the case or reading media accounts of the case violated defendant\u2019s right to presence. The first instance occurred 20 April 2004:\nTHE COURT: Okay. Wait. Let\u2019s go ahead and let everybody go to lunch.\nBAILIFF HILL: Okay, [y]our Honor.\nTHE COURT: I don\u2019t think we need \u2014 We\u2019re probably at a good standing point. You may tell the jurors that are in \u2014 back here that they may go to lunch but to be back and ready to go a little bit before 2:00. And make sure they don\u2019t discuss the case or talk with anyone about it. And the same with those that are in the jury pool.\nBAILIFF HILL: Yes, sir, [y]our Honor.\nTHE COURT: Thank you very much.\nBAILIFF HILL: Yes, sir, [y]our Honor.\nThe next instance occurred at the end of the proceedings on 22 April 2004:\nTHE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hill, if you will tell the other jurors to be back here and ready to go at 9:15 or so tomorrow. Remind them not to read any newspaper accounts and not to talk about the case.\nBAILIFF HILL: Yes, sir, [y]our Honor.\nTHE COURT: Okay. And we will \u2014 Ms. Cook, we\u2019ll- be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.\nWhen court resumed the next morning, the following exchange took place:\nTHE COURT: Okay. Here\u2019s what we\u2019ll do then. Pick out, call out twelve names, tell them to be back after lunch, say around 1:30, 1:45, something like that. Then the remainder that have not been called out will not have to come back until Monday morning at 9:30.\nBAILIFF HILL: Yes, sir, [y]our Honor.\nTHE COURT: Mr. Hill, please remind them that they\u2019re not to talk about the case with anyone and they\u2019re not to read any newspaper accounts or any media reports.\nAlthough we reiterate our warning that \u201cshorthand procedures\u201d such as these \u201cmay run the risk of violating [a] defendant\u2019s right to be present,\u201d State v. Gay, 334 N.C. 467, 482-83, 434 S.E.2d 840, 848 (1993), the challenged jury management procedures do not constitute reversible error on these facts. In State v. Gay, this Court considered two challenges based on a capital defendant\u2019s right to presence which bear on the instant case. First, we held that the trial judge\u2019s admonitions to prospective jurors outside of defendant\u2019s presence did not result in prejudicial error because the record \u201caffirmatively reveal[ed] exactly what the trial court intended to say to the prospective jurors,\u201d and there was \u201cno indication that anything to the contrary occurred.\u201d Id. at 482, 434 S.E.2d at 848. Thus, despite the trial court\u2019s error in addressing the prospective jurors outside of the presence of the defendant, the state met its burden of proving that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.\nSecond, we held that a reminder by the bailiff to prospective jurors and the jury itself to abide by the court\u2019s admonitions should not be considered an instruction as to the law, since \u201c[c]ommunications such as these do not relate to defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence.\u201d Id. We further explained that \u201c[t]he subject matter of these communications in no way implicates defendant\u2019s confrontation rights, nor would defendant\u2019s presence have been useful to his defense .... [as] demonstrated by the fact that defendant\u2019s attorney had no objection to the shorthand procedure.\u201d Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).\nThe present facts are a combination of those involved in the two right-to-presence issues considered in Gay. First, as in Gay, the record here reflects the specific instructions the trial judge sought to have administered to the jury because the trial judge explicitly told the bailiff the substance of the instructions and asked him to pass them along to the jury. Likewise, there is nothing in the instant record to suggest that the bailiff did not follow these instructions as ordered. See State v. May, 334 N.C. 609, 615, 434 S.E.2d 180, 183 (1993) (\u201cWithout anything in the record to show something else happened, we will assume the bailiff followed the court\u2019s instructions.\u201d), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1198 (1994). Stated succinctly, the record \u201caffirmatively reveals exactly what the trial court intended to say to the prospective jurors\u201d and there was \u201cno indication that anything to the contrary occurred.\u201d Gay, 334 N.C. at 482, 434 S.E.2d at 848.\nSecond, as in Gay, it was the bailiff who delivered instructions from the trial court to the jury on several occasions, with no objection from defendant to the trial court\u2019s shorthand procedures. Here also, the communications \u201c[did] not relate to defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence],] .. . nor would defendant\u2019s presence have been useful to his defense.\u201d Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the instructions conveyed by the bailiff \u201cshould not be considered an instruction as to the law\u201d outside the presence of a capital defendant. Id. Accordingly, although the trial court\u2019s shorthand procedure was error, the state has met its burden of proving that the violation of defendant\u2019s right to presence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.; see also Huff, 325 N.C. at 27-36, 381 S.E.2d at 649-55 (analyzing various violations of the defendant\u2019s right to presence and concluding all were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).\nNext, defendant argues that his right to presence was violated when the trial judge met with the jury to thank them for their service before discharging them. In response to the state\u2019s contention that the jury\u2019s service was complete at the time of the meeting, defendant notes that the jury marked \u201cNO\u201d on the verdict form next to each mitigating circumstance it found not to exist instead of leaving these spaces blank. For this reason, defendant argues, the jury\u2019s role in defendant\u2019s trial was not yet complete, because it could still have been polled a second time before it was discharged as to its reasons for making these markings on the verdict form.\nWe conclude that the trial court did not err in thanking the members of the jury for their service, as the jury\u2019s service was complete at the time the trial judge thanked and discharged the jury outside of defendant\u2019s presence. This meeting occurred after the jury had delivered its unanimous verdict and been polled at defendant\u2019s request, and after the trial court recorded the verdict. It follows then that this meeting occurred after the jury had completed its service. See Davis v. State, 273 N.C. 533, 538, 160 S.E.2d 697, 702 (1968) (explaining that a jury\u2019s verdict is \u201ccomplete\u201d when it is \u201caccepted by the court for its records\u201d). Even if defendant were entitled to a \u201cre-polling\u201d of the jury under these circumstances, he never asked the trial court to do so. Thus, the jury\u2019s role in defendant\u2019s trial was complete at the time the trial judge met with the jury because defendant waived any purported right to \u201cre-poll\u201d the jury. See State v. Black, 328 N.C. 191, 198, 400 S.E.2d 398, 403 (1991) (holding that the right to poll the jury is subject to waiver). Finally, as a practical matter, we fail to see what a second polling of the jury under these circumstances would have accomplished, as the only plausible explanation for why the jury marked \u201cNO\u201d on the verdict form as to each mitigating circumstance at issue is that the jury simply did not find the existence of those mitigating circumstances. See id. (\u201cThe purpose of polling the jury is to ensure that the jurors unanimously agree with and consent to the verdict at the time it is rendered.\u201d). Consequently, defendant\u2019s argument is without merit.\nCAPITAL SENTENCING PROCEEDING\nDefendant argues that he is entitled to a new capital sentencing proceeding because the trial court erred by denying his request to submit certain mitigating circumstances to the jury. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b) provides, in pertinent part:\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.\nUnder N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(b), the trial court is required to include in the written verdict form all statutory mitigating circumstances supported by \u201csubstantial evidence.\u201d State v. Zuniga, 348 N.C. 214, 217, 498 S.E.2d 611, 613 (1998); State v. Greene, 329 N.C. 771, 775-77, 408 S.E.2d 185, 186-87 (1991). \u201cThe test for determining if the evidence is \u2018substantial evidence\u2019 is \u2018whether a juror could reasonably find that the circumstance exists based on the evidence.\u2019 \u201d State v. Watts, 357 N.C. 366, 377, 584 S.E.2d 740, 748 (2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 944 (2004). We have further explained that \u201csubstantial evidence\u201d is \u201c \u2018more than a scintilla of evidence,\u2019 \u201d and that the evidence must be \u201cexisting and real, not just seeming or imaginary.\u201d State v. Hill, 347 N.C. 275, 301, 493 S.E.2d 264, 279 (1997) (quoting State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 66, 296 S.E.2d 649, 652 (1982) (citation omitted)), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1142 (1998). Defendant bears \u201cthe burden of producing \u2018substantial evidence\u2019 tending to show the existence of a mitigating circumstance before that circumstance will be submitted to the jury.\u201d State v. Holmes, 355 N.C. 719, 736, 565 S.E.2d 154, 166-67 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1010 (2002).\nDefendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to submit the mitigating circumstance described in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(2) because substantial evidence existed that the murder was committed while defendant was \u201cunder the influence of mental or emotional disturbance.\u201d Defendant contends that under State v. Greene, 329 N.C. 771, 408 S.E.2d 185, the trial court was required to submit the (f)(2) mitigator to the jury because there was substantial evidence that defendant suffered from intermittent explosive disorder. Defendant claims this mental illness caused his inability to control his violent actions.\nTwo of defendant\u2019s experts, Dr. Thomas Ansbro and Dr. Thomas Gresalfi, made no mention of intermittent explosive disorder, or any other disorder that would require the submission of the (f)(2) mitigator. Dr. Elizabeth Pekarek, the lone expert who diagnosed defendant with intermittent explosive disorder, did so as a preliminary diagnosis, offering no evidence or testimony to explain the specific symptoms of this disorder or how such symptoms would have affected defendant at the time of the crime. Dr. Pekarek admitted that she was not surprised to learn that a leading diagnostic guidebook for mental health professionals referred to intermittent explosive disorder as a \u201crare\u201d condition, and that she reached her preliminary diagnosis without following the recommended practice of first ruling out all other disorders associated with aggressive impulses and without ruling out potential malingering. Dr. Pekarek also admitted that she eventually retreated from her initial preliminary diagnosis after learning about defendant\u2019s calculated attack on another inmate while in prison, which she believed was inconsistent with intermittent explosive disorder. Notably, on the basis of this evidence, the jury unanimously rejected the following nonstatutory mitigating circumstance submitted on defendant\u2019s behalf: \u201cDuring his detention at the Randolph County [j]ail in 2003, the defendant was diagnosed with Intermittent Explosive Disorder.\u201d In sum, the testimony supporting defendant\u2019s claim that he suffered from intermittent explosive disorder was inadequate and highly controverted at best. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by refusing to submit the (f)(2) mitigator. See, e.g., State v. Gainey, 355 N.C. 73, 103, 558 S.E.2d 463, 482-83 (holding that submission of (f)(2) mitigator was not required when defendant\u2019s expert \u201chad reservations\u201d about defendant\u2019s diagnosis), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 896 (2002); State v. Hedgepeth, 350 N.C. 776, 787-88, 517 S.E.2d 605, 612-13 (1999) (concluding that controverted and conflicting evidence did not entitle defendant to submission of the (f)(2) mitigating circumstance), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1006 (2000).\nMoreover, the trial court\u2019s refusal to admit the (f)(2) mitigating circumstance is appropriate when \u201c \u2018[t]he events before, during, and after the killing suggest[ ] deliberation, not the frenzied behavior of an emotionally disturbed person.\u2019 \u201d State v. Hill, 347 N.C. 275, 302, 493 S.E.2d 264, 279 (1997) (quoting State v. Noland, 312 N.C. 1, 23, 320 S.E.2d 642, 656 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1230 (1985)), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1142 (1998). Here, defendant stabbed the victim in the neck with a pocketknife requiring both hands to open, then chased the victim into the kitchen, where defendant slashed his arm and pushed him to the ground to prevent him from using the telephone to call for help. Defendant then washed the victim\u2019s blood off the murder weapon in the victim\u2019s kitchen sink. Next, defendant stole the victim\u2019s money and possessions and later returned to the crime scene to steal more items from the victim, including his truck. Defendant also attempted to hide his guilt by disposing of the murder weapon and lying to police. These actions signal deliberation, not the influence of an emotional or mental disturbance at the time of the crime.\nDefendant\u2019s reliance on State v. Greene is also misplaced. In Greene, this Court found evidence sufficient to submit the (f)(2) mitigator when there was evidence that defendant \u201csuffered from organic brain damage which resulted in his having poor judgment and a lack of impulse control.\u201d 329 N.C. at 775, 408 S.E.2d at 186-87. The facts of the instant case are fully distinguishable from Greene, as nothing tantamount to substantial evidence of brain damage was introduced into evidence at defendant\u2019s trial. To the contrary, the evidence introduced here revealed the plain inability of defendant to control his temper when the mentally disabled victim pointed at defendant and yelled about \u201cworkers of iniquity.\u201d To be sure, \u201c[w]e have previously stated that an inability to control one\u2019s temper is neither mental nor emotional disturbance as contemplated by [the (f)(2)] mitigator.\u201d State v. Strickland, 346 N.C. 443, 464, 488 S.E.2d 194, 206 (1997) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1078 (1998). Accordingly, the trial court did not err by refusing to submit this mitigating factor to the jury.\nDefendant also argues that the trial court erred by failing to submit the mitigating circumstance . described in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(6) because substantial evidence existed that the murder was committed while \u201cthe capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of [the] law was impaired.\u201d Defendant argues that his intermittent explosive disorder led to impulsive and aggressive outbursts in response to minor provocations, and that this evidence is sufficient to require submission of the (f)(6) mitigator to the jury.\nFor the same reasons that defendant\u2019s argument as to the (f)(2) mitigator fails, defendant\u2019s argument here fails as well, because there is insufficient evidence in the record that defendant suffered from intermittent explosive disorder. In addition, the same evidence of deliberation which makes submission of the (f)(2) mitigator improper also makes submission of the (f)(6) mitigator improper. In particular, defendant\u2019s initial lies to police about his involvement in the murder and his washing and disposal of the murder weapon are especially relevant on the (f)(6) mitigator, because they tend to show that defendant fully appreciated the criminality of his conduct. See State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364, 476, 533 S.E.2d 168, 240 (2000) (holding trial court properly refused to submit (f)(6) mitigator when there was evidence that defendant initially denied his role in shooting two police officers), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 931 (2001). Accordingly, defendant\u2019s argument that the trial court erred in refusing to submit the (f)(6) mitigator is without merit.\nDefendant next argues that the trial court erred by failing to order a competency hearing sua sponte in the presence of an allegedly bona fide doubt as to defendant\u2019s competency to stand trial. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1001(a) governs the determination of a defendant\u2019s capacity to proceed and provides in pertinent part:\nNo person may be tried, convicted, sentenced, or punished for a crime when by reason of mental illness or defect he is unable to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to comprehend his own situation in reference to the proceedings, or to assist in his defense in a rational or reasonable manner.\nUnder N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1002(a), \u201c[t]he question of the capacity of the defendant to proceed may be raised at any time on motion by the prosecutor, the defendant, the defense counsel, or the court[,]\u201d provided that the motion \u201cdetail[s] the specific conduct that leads the moving party to question the defendant\u2019s capacity to proceed.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1002(b) further provides that \u201c[w]hen the capacity of the defendant to proceed is questioned [pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1001(a)], the court shall hold a hearing to determine the defendant\u2019s capacity to proceed.\u201d\nIn applying these statutory provisions, this Court has recognized that the trial court is only required to \u201chold a hearing to determine the defendant\u2019s capacity to proceed if the question is raised.\u201d State v. King, 353 N.C. 457, 466, 546 S.E.2d 575, 584 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1147 (2002). Therefore, the statutory right to a competency hearing is waived by the failure to assert that right at trial. Id. at 466, 546 S.E.2d at 584-85; State v. Young, 291 N.C. 562, 567, 231 S.E.2d 577, 580-81 (1977). Nothing in the instant record indicates that the prosecutors, defense counsel, defendant, or the court raised the question of defendant\u2019s capacity to proceed at any point during the proceedings, nor was there any motion made detailing the specific conduct supporting such an allegation. Defendant\u2019s statutory right to a competency hearing was therefore waived by the failure to assert that right at trial.\nNevertheless, under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, \u201c[a] criminal defendant may not be tried unless he is competent.\u201d Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396 (1993) (citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378 (1996)). As a result, \u201c \u2018[a] trial court has a constitutional duty to institute, sua sponte, a competency hearing if there is substantial evidence before the court indicating that the accused may be mentally incompetent.\u2019 \u201d King, 353 N.C. at 467, 546 S.E.2d at 585 (alteration in original) (quoting Young, 291 N.C. at 568, 231 S.E.2d at 581 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). In enforcing this constitutional right, \u201cthe standard for competence to stand trial is whether the defendant has \u2018sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding\u2019 and has \u2018a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.\u2019 \u201d Godinez, 509 U.S. at 396 (quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Defendant points to evidence in the record indicating that he: (1) wrote numerous letters to the trial court and the district attorney expressing his desire for a speedy trial resulting in a death sentence; (2) read a statement to the jury during the penalty phase in which he impliedly asked for a death sentence; and (3) had an emotional outburst coupled with verbal attacks on the assistant district attorney who delivered the state\u2019s closing argument during the sentencing proceeding.\nWe conclude that the evidence referenced by defendant did not constitute \u201csubstantial evidence\u201d requiring the trial court to institute a competency hearing, and that this evidence was outweighed by substantial evidence indicating that defendant was competent to stand trial. The record shows that defendant was able to interact appropriately with his attorneys during the trial. He conferred with them on issues of law applicable to his case. He followed their advice by \u25a0 declining to testify during the guilt-innocence phase. Defendant also responded directly and appropriately to questioning during the capital sentencing proceeding as well as to the trial court\u2019s inquiries throughout the trial.\nDefendant also demonstrated a strong understanding of the proceedings against him, and consistently addressed the trial court with appropriate deference and intelligent responses. For instance, defendant had the following exchange with the trial judge:\n[DEFENDANT]: Your Honor?\nTHE COURT: Yes, sir.\n[DEFENDANT]: May I address the Court?\nTHE COURT: Yes, sir, you may.\n[DEFENDANT]: In that criminal, law book it says, I don\u2019t know the General Statute, but it says the defendant or defendant\u2019s counsel may have the right to the last argument. I was advised by [defense counsel] that I could not address the jury at that time, that I would have to go through [defense counsel]. Is that correct?\n[DEFENDANT]: Your Honor, may I be allowed to at least say something to the jury before they deliberate on the conviction phase?\nIndeed, even after his outburst during the state\u2019s closing arguments, defendant calmly and rationally explained that he was upset because he felt the state\u2019s closing argument portrayed him as avoiding responsibility for his actions. Defendant then apologized to the trial court for interrupting the proceedings.\nWe observe that defendant called three experts to testify about his psychological history, yet none of them suggested that he suffered from a condition that would render him incompetent to stand trial. Though the record confirms that defendant was treated for anger management and depression prior to trial, this is insufficient to establish a lack of competency. See King, 353 N.C. at 467, 546 S.E.2d at 585 (holding that evidence of treatment for depression and suicidal tendencies several months before trial did not constitute \u201csubstantial evidence\u201d requiring the trial court to hold competency hearing).\nFinally, we are unable to conclude that defendant\u2019s desire for a speedy trial resulting in a death sentence indicates a lack of competence to stand trial. As then-Associate Justice Rehnquist commented in Lenhard v. Wolff, 443 U.S. 1306, 1312-13 (1979):\nThe idea that the deliberate decision of one under sentence of death to abandon possible additional legal avenues of attack on that sentence cannot be a rational decision, regardless of its motive, suggests that the preservation of one\u2019s own life at whatever cost is the summum bonum, a proposition with respect to which the greatest philosophers and theologians have not agreed and with respect to which the United States Constitution by its terms does not speak.\nAccordingly, we hold that the evidence before the trial court did not constitute \u201csubstantial evidence\u201d requiring it to institute a competency hearing sua sponte.\nPRESERVATION ISSUES\nDefendant raises additional issues that have previously been decided by this Court contrary to his position: (1) whether the short-form murder indictment used to charge defendant is unconstitutional; (2) whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it \u201chad to unanimously fail to find the aggravating circumstances sufficiently substantial\u201d before it could recommend a sentence of life imprisonment without parole; (3) whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it had a \u201cduty\u201d to recommend that defendant be sentenced to death if it \u201cfound that the mitigating circumstances were insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances and that the aggravating circumstances, when considered with the mitigating circumstances, were sufficiently substantial to call for the death penalty\u201d; (4) whether the trial court erred by \u201cdefining] mitigating circumstances in its charge to the jury as a fact or group of facts which may be considered as \u2018extenuating or reducing the moral culpability of the killing or making it less deserving of extreme punishment than other first-degree murders\u2019 \u201d; and (5) whether the standards utilized by this Court under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(d)(2) to review the proportionality of a jury\u2019s determination of death as the appropriate punishment are unconstitutional. We have considered defendant\u2019s contentions on these issues and find no compelling reason to depart from our prior holdings. Therefore, we reject defendant\u2019s arguments.\nPROPORTIONALITY REVIEW\nFinally, pursuant to our statutory duty under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(d)(2), we must determine: (1) whether the record supports the aggravating circumstances found by the jury; (2) whether the death sentence was imposed \u201cunder the influence of passion, prejudice,' or any other arbitrary factor\u201d; and (3) whether the death penalty is \u201cexcessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases,\u201d considering both the crime and the defendant.\nDefendant was convicted of first-degree murder on the basis of malice, premeditation, and deliberation, and under the felony murder rule. The jury found two aggravating circumstances to exist: (1) that \u201cdefendant had been previously convicted of a felony involving the use ... of violence to the person,\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(e)(3); and (2) that the murder was committed for \u201cpecuniary gain,\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(e)(6). The trial court submitted the statutory catchall mitigating circumstance on defendant\u2019s behalf, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(9), but the jury did not find this mitigating circumstance to exist and have mitigating value. The trial court also submitted fourteen additional nonstatutory mitigating circumstances on defendant\u2019s behalf, eight of which the jury found to exist and have mitigating value.\nHaving thoroughly reviewed the record, transcripts, and briefs in the present case, we conclude that the record fully supports the aggravating circumstances found by the jury. We find no evidence that the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary consideration. Thus, we now address our final statutory duty of proportionality review.\n\u201cThe purpose of proportionality review is to eliminate the possibility that a person will be sentenced to die by the action of an aberrant jury.\u201d Hyatt, 355 N.C. at 670, 566 S.E.2d 61 at 79 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). \u201c \u2018In our proportionality review, we must compare the present case with other cases in which this Court has ruled upon the proportionality issue.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting State v. McCollum, 334 N.C. 208, 240, 433 S.E.2d 144, 162 (1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1254 (1994)). We have found the death sentence disproportionate in eight cases. See State v. Kemmerlin, 356 N.C. 446, 489, 573 S.E.2d 870, 898 (2002); State v. Benson, 323 N.C. 318, 328, 372 S.E.2d 517, 522 (1988); State v. Stokes, 319 N.C. 1, 27, 352 S.E.2d 653, 668 (1987); State v. Rogers, 316 N.C. 203, 237, 341 S.E.2d 713, 733 (1986), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Vandiver, 321 N.C. 570, 364 S.E.2d 373 (1988), and by State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 483 S.E.2d 396, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 (1997); State v. Young, 312 N.C. 669, 691, 325 S.E.2d 181, 194 (1985); State v. Hill, 311 N.C. 465, 479, 319 S.E.2d 163, 172 (1984); State v. Bondurant, 309 N.C. 674, 694, 309 S.E.2d 170, 183 (1983); State v. Jackson, 309 N.C. 26, 46, 305 S.E.2d 703, 717 (1983).\nWe conclude that this case is not substantially similar to any case in which this Court has found the death penalty disproportionate. First, defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder on the basis of malice, premeditation and deliberation, and under the felony murder rule. \u201cWe have held that a finding of premeditation and deliberation indicates \u2018a more calculated and cold-blooded crime.\u2019 \u201d Hyatt, 355 N.C. at 670, 566 S.E.2d at 79 (quoting State v. Lee, 335 N.C. 244, 297, 439 S.E.2d 547, 575, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 891 (1994)). Defendant stabbed the victim, then physically restrained him from using his telephone to call for help before watching him bleed to death. At some point in the struggle, defendant also used the pocketknife to slash the victim\u2019s right arm, leaving a significant wound. We further observe that the folding pocketknife used to murder the victim had to be pulled open before it could be used, a process that lasted a moment and required the use of both of defendant\u2019s hands. See State v. Forrest, 321 N.C. 186, 196, 362 S.E.2d 252, 258 (1987) (concluding that sufficient evidence of premeditation existed when the revolver defendant used in the murder \u201chad to be cocked each time before it could be fired\u201d). This evidence of premeditation and deliberation supports the proportionality of the death penalty in the instant case.\nSecond, the jury found the existence of the (e)(3) aggravating circumstance based upon the defendant\u2019s killing of Chriscoe in 1992. We have previously stated that \u201c[t]he jury\u2019s finding of the prior conviction of a violent felony aggravating circumstance is significant in finding a death sentence proportionate.\u201d State v. Lyons, 343 N.C. 1, 27, 468 S.E.2d 204, 217 (citing State v. Harris, 338 N.C. 129, 449 S.E.2d, 371 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1100), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 894 (1996). \u201cIn none of the cases in which the death penalty was found to be disproportionate has the jury found the (e)(3) aggravating circumstance.\u201d State v. Peterson, 350 N.C. 518, 538, 516 S.E.2d 131, 143 (1999) (citing Lyons, 343 N.C. at 27-28, 468 S.E.2d at 217), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1164 (2000).\nIt is also relevant that defendant murdered the victim in the victim\u2019s home, .\u201can especially private place, one in which a person has a right to feel secure.\u201d State v. Brown, 320 N.C. 179, 231, 358 S.E.2d 1, 34 (relying on fact that victim was murdered while inside his home in finding death sentence not disproportionate), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 970 (1987). In addition, the victim had shown defendant compassion by allowing him to stay overnight as a guest in the victim\u2019s home on an occasion weeks prior to the murder, as well as on the night of the murder. In exchange for the victim\u2019s kind willingness to provide defendant with shelter from the cold November temperatures, defendant repaid the victim\u2019s compassion by senselessly taking his life. See State v. Carter, 342 N.C. 312, 329, 464 S.E.2d 272, 283 (1995) (holding death penalty not disproportionate when defendant chose to kill a person \u201cwho had treated him with kindness and compassion\u201d), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1225 (1996). This evidence further supports the proportionality of the death penalty in the instant case.\n\u201c \u2018We also compare this case with the cases in which we have found the death penalty to be proportionate.\u2019 \u201d Hyatt, 355 N.C. at 671, 566 S.E.2d at 80 (quoting McCollum, 334 N.C. at 244, 433 S.E.2d at 164). \u201cAlthough this Court reviews all of the cases in that pool when engaging in its duty of proportionality review, we have repeatedly stated that \u2018we will not undertake to discuss or cite all of those cases each time we carry out that duty.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting McCollum, 334 N.C. at 244, 433 S.E.2d at 164). \u201cWhether a sentence of death is disproportionate in a particular case ultimately rest[s] upon the experienced judgments of the members of this Court.\u201d Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). We conclude that this case is more similar to cases in which we have found the death penalty proportionate than to those in which we have found it disproportionate. Therefore, based on the foregoing and the entire record in this case, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that the sentence of death was excessive or disproportionate.\nIn sum, we hold that defendant received a fair trial and capital sentencing proceeding free from prejudicial error. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court sentencing defendant to death must be left undisturbed.\nNO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.\nJustice HUDSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by John H. Watters, Special Deputy Attorney General, and Rudy Renfer, Assistant Attorney General, for the state.", "James R. Glover for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN SCOTT BADGETT\nNo. 522A04\n(Filed 4 May 2007)\n1. Evidence\u2014 prior crimes or bad acts \u2014 killing of another victim \u2014 similarity\u2014remoteness in time\nThe trial court did not err in a capital first-degree murder case by denying defendant\u2019s motion in limine under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(b) to exclude evidence related to defendant\u2019s 1992 killing of another victim, because: (1) with respect to the similarity requirement, the murder in the instant case and the 1992 killing exhibited remarkable parallels when both crimes involved a fatal stab wound to an unarmed victim\u2019s neck with a folding pocketknife which occurred during an argument with . the victim in the victim\u2019s home; (2) as to the temporal proximity requirement, the trial court may properly exclude prison time resulting from the previous conviction in its determination of whether that conviction is too remote in time to the present crime, and defendant was in prison for five of the ten years between the 1992 killing and the 2002 murder in the present case, leaving only five years between the two crimes; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 403 by admitting the 1992 killing when the trial court guarded against the possibility of unfair prejudice by instructing the jury to consider such evidence for the limited purposes allowed by Rule 404(b), and these limiting instructions also specifically admonished the jury not to consider the challenged evidence on the issue of defendant\u2019s character.\n2. Evidence\u2014 prior crimes or bad acts \u2014 prior conviction for voluntary manslaughter \u2014 harmless error\nThe trial court committed harmless error in a capital first-degree murder case by admitting evidence that defendant had previously been convicted of voluntary manslaughter, because: (1) contrary to the State\u2019s contention, waiver did not occur when the testimony admitted was the same testimony to which defendant had raised the objection overruled by the trial court, and was not later testimony accepted without objection; (2) defendant\u2019s reference to his prior conviction in closing argument did not result in waiver when the trial court had admitted evidence of defendant\u2019s previous conviction, and defendant was entitled to make a reasonable and bona fide effort to explain and minimize the impact of this evidence in closing argument -without risking waiver; and (3) although it was error to admit evidence from a detective that defendant had been previously convicted of manslaughter when defendant did not testify during the guilt-innocence phase of this case, defendant failed to demonstrate any reasonable possibility that the jury would have reached a different result had the evidence been excluded.\n3. Constitutional Law\u2014 right to presence \u2014 drawing random names from pool of prospective jurors\nDefendant\u2019s right to presence was not violated in a capital first-degree murder trial when the clerk allegedly drew random names from the pool of prospective jurors outside of defendant\u2019s presence, because: (1) nothing in the record suggests that the clerk failed to draw prospective jurors at random, in open court, and in defendant\u2019s presence; (2) defendant\u2019s theory that the clerk could have failed to properly carry out a routine task rests on pure speculation; and (3) even assuming that the clerk\u2019s random draw was not performed in defendant\u2019s presence, this fact does not necessarily entitle defendant to a new trial when even though the instant record does not indicate that the clerk formally spoke the names of prospective jurors on the record, the clerk nevertheless drew names of prospective jurors at random, in open court, and in defendant\u2019s presence.\n4. Constitutional Law\u2014 right to presence \u2014 bailiff\u2019s reminders to prospective jurors to refrain from discussing case or reading media accounts\nThe bailiff\u2019s reminders to prospective jurors in a capital first-degree murder case to refrain from discussing the case or reading media accounts of the case violated defendant\u2019s right to presence but were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because: (1) the record reflects the specific instructions the trial judge sought to have administered to the jury because the trial judge explicitly told the bailiff the substance of the instructions and asked him to pass them along to the jury, and nothing in the record suggests that the bailiff failed to instruct the jury as the trial judge requested; and (2) a reminder by the bailiff to prospective jurors and the jury itself to abide by the court\u2019s admonitions should not be considered an instruction as to the law, since communications such as these do not relate to defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence.\n5; Constitutional Law\u2014 right to presence \u2014 trial judge met with jury to thank them for service before discharging them\nDefendant\u2019s right to presence was not violated in a capital first-degree murder case when the trial judge met with the jurors to thank them for their service before discharging them, because: (1) the jury\u2019s service was complete at the time the trial judge thanked and discharged the jury outside of defendant\u2019s presence since the meeting occurred after the jury had delivered its unanimous verdict and been polled at defendant\u2019s request, and after the trial court recorded the verdict; (2) even if defendant were entitled to a re-polling of the jury under these circumstances, he never asked the trial court to do so; and (3) as a practical matter, our Supreme Court failed to see what a second polling of the jury under these circumstances would have accomplished, as the only plausible explanation for why the jury marked \u201cno\u201d on the verdict form as to each mitigating circumstance at issue is that the jury simply did not find the existence of those mitigating circumstances. N.C. Const, art. I, \u00a7 23.\n6. Sentencing\u2014 mitigating circumstances \u2014 mental or emotional disturbance\nThe trial court did not err in a capital first-degree murder case by failing to submit the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(2) mitigating circumstance that the murder was committed while defendant was under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance, because: (1) two of defendant\u2019s experts made no mention of intermittent explosive disorder or any other disorder that would require the submission of the (f)(2) mitigator; (2) the lone expert who diagnosed defendant with intermittent explosive disorder did so as a preliminary diagnosis offering no evidence or testimony to explain the specific symptoms of this disorder or how such symptoms would have affected defendant at the time of the crime, she reached her preliminary diagnosis without following the recommended practice of first ruling out all other disorders associated with aggressive impulses and without ruling out potential malingering, and she also admitted that she eventually retreated from her initial preliminary diagnosis after learning about defendant\u2019s calculated attack on another inmate while in prison which she believed was inconsistent with intermittent explosive disorder; (3) the testimony supporting defendant\u2019s claim that he suffered from intermittent explosive disorder was inadequate and highly controverted at best; (4) the trial court\u2019s refusal to admit the (f)(2) mitigating circumstance is appropriate when the events before, during, and after the killing suggest deliberation, and not the frenzied behavior of an emotionally disturbed person; (5) nothing tantamount to substantial evidence of brain damage was introduced into evidence at defendant\u2019s trial, and to the contrary, the evidence introduced revealed the plain inability of defendant to control his temper when the mentally disabled victim pointed at defendant and yelled; and (6) an inability to control one\u2019s temper is neither mental nor emotional disturbance as contemplated by the (f)(2) mitigator.\n7. Sentencing\u2014 mitigating circumstances \u2014 impaired capacity\nThe trial court did not err in a capital first-degree murder case by failing to submit the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(f)(6) mitigating circumstance that the murder was committed while the capacity of defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was impaired, because: (1) for the same reasons that defendant\u2019s argument as to the (f)(2) mitigator failed, defendant\u2019s argument here fails as well when there is insufficient evidence in the record that defendant suffered from intermittent explosive disorder; and (2) the same evidence of deliberation which makes submission of the (f)(2) mitigator improper also makes submission of the (f)(6) mitigator improper when defendant\u2019s initial lies to police about his involvement in the murder and his washing and disposal of the murder weapon tended to show that defendant fully appreciated the criminality of his conduct.\n8. Constitutional Law\u2014 competency to stand trial \u2014 failure to order competency hearing\nThe trial court did not err in a first-degree murder case by failing to order a competency hearing sua sponte in the presence of an allegedly bona fide doubt as to defendant\u2019s competency to stand trial, because: (1) the statutory right to a competency hearing is waived by the failure to assert that right at trial, and nothing in the instant record indicates that the prosecutors, defense counsel, defendant, or the court raised the question of defendant\u2019s capacity to proceed at any point during the proceedings, nor was there any motion made detailing the specific conduct supporting such an allegation; (2) the evidence referenced by defendant did not constitute substantial evidence requiring the trial court to institute a competency hearing, and there was evidence indicating that defendant was competent to stand trial, including that defendant was able to interact appropriately with his attorneys during the trial, he conferred with them on issues of law applicable to his case, he followed their advice by declining to testify during the guilt-innocence phase, he responded directly and appropriately to questioning during the capital sentencing proceeding as well as to the trial court\u2019s inquiries throughout the trial, he demonstrated a strong understanding of the proceedings against him, and he consistently addressed the trial court with appropriate deference and intelligent responses; (3) although the record confirms that defendant was ^treated for anger management and depression prior to trial, this evidence was insufficient to establish a lack of competency; and (4) our Supreme Court was unable to conclude that defendant\u2019s desire for a speedy trial resulting in a death sentence indicates a lack of competence to stand trial. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1001(a).\n9. Sentencing\u2014 death penalty \u2014 proportionality\nThe trial court did not err in a first-degree murder case by sentencing defendant to the death penalty, because: (1) defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder on the basis of malice, premeditation and deliberation, and under the felony murder rule; (2) there was substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation including that defendant stabbed the victim, then physically restrained him from using his telephone to call for help before watching him bleed to death, at some point in the struggle defendant also used the pocketknife to slash the victim\u2019s right arm leaving a significant wound, and the folding pocketknife used to murder the victim had to be pulled open before it could be used; (3) the jury found the existence of the (e)(3) aggravating circumstance based upon the defendant\u2019s prior killing, and the jury\u2019s finding of the prior conviction of a violent felony aggravating circumstance is significant in finding a death sentence proportionate; (4) defendant murdered the victim in the victim\u2019s home; and (5) the victim had shown defendant compassion by allowing him to stay overnight as a guest in the victim\u2019s home on an occasion weeks prior to the murder, as well as on the night of the murder, and in exchange for the victim\u2019s kind willingness to provide defendant with shelter from the cold November temperatures, defendant repaid the victim\u2019s compassion by taking his life.\nJustice Hudson did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a) from a judgment imposing a sentence of death entered by Judge John O. Craig, III, on 6 May 2004 in Superior Court, Randolph County, upon a jury verdict finding defendant guilty of first-degree murder. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 September 2006.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by John H. Watters, Special Deputy Attorney General, and Rudy Renfer, Assistant Attorney General, for the state.\nJames R. Glover for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0234-01", "first_page_order": 292, "last_page_order": 323 }