Court Opinion

ID: 9572260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:40:11.010363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:11.650279
License: Public Domain

*321Justice Exum
dissenting.
I agree thoroughly with the position taken by Justice Carlton and join in his dissent. I write separately simply to say that this Court, having so recently decided Harris and even more recently reaffirmed Harris in Keller and State v. Poole, 298 N.C. 254, 258 S.E. 2d 339 (1979), has an obligation to treat Harris, Keller, Poole and Strickland, the defendant here, equally. Under these circumstances, if relief from the Harris rule is going to come at all, it should come from the legislature so that any statute overruling Harris would apply, prospectively only, to all criminal defendants alike. I therefore dissent for this additional reason.