Opinion ID: 1258573
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prosecutor's Characterization of Mitigating Circumstances

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court erred during jury selection by permitting the prosecutor, over defendant's objection, to misrepresent the law with regard to mitigating circumstances. Our trial courts have traditionally been afforded broad discretion to rule upon the manner and extent of jury voir dire, and this Court will not disturb such a ruling on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Polke, 361 N.C. 65, 68-69, 638 S.E.2d 189, 191 (2006) (citations omitted), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 70, 169 L.Ed.2d 55 (2007). Before trial, defendant filed a written motion To Prohibit the DA from Improperly Defining a Mitigating Circumstance. At a pretrial hearing on defendant's motion on 12 January 2006, the trial court reserved its ruling on the motion, instructing both sides to follow the statute and to note an objection in the event opposing counsel made any improper statement of the law. During the State's jury voir dire questioning on 30 January 2006, the prosecutor stated without objection: A mitigating circumstance, if you cho[o]se to believe it, could make this crime more deserving of life imprisonment. However, defense counsel did object to two similar remarks made by the prosecutor later in the proceeding, and these objections were sustained. On the morning of 31 January 2006, defendant filed a written motion to prohibit the prosecutor from incorrectly defining aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The trial court held a brief hearing on defendant's motion and again declined to enter a ruling, but noted defendant's continuing objection to [the prosecutor's] questions. As in State v. Frye, the prosecutor's remarks during voir dire were shorthand summaries of the definition[ ] of . . . mitigating circumstances and were substantially correct, even if slightly slanted toward the State's perspective. See 341 N.C. 470, 491, 461 S.E.2d 664, 674 (1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1123, 116 S.Ct. 1359, 134 L.Ed.2d 526 (1996). Thus, the trial court's rulings upon defendant's motions and objections were not manifestly unsupported by reason or so arbitrary that they could not have been the result of a reasoned decision. Polke, 361 N.C. at 69, 638 S.E.2d at 191 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant's assignment of error is overruled.