Court Opinion

ID: 9567935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:59:08.656147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:23:16.114687
License: Public Domain

Justice Mitchell
dissenting in part.
For reasons nearly identical to those in the dissent in State v. Quesinberry, 319 N.C. 228, 241, 354 S.E.2d 446, 454 (1987) (Martin, J., joined by Meyer and Mitchell, JJ., dissenting in part), I do not believe that the trial court erred in submitting both the aggravating circumstance that the murder was committed for pecuniary gain and the aggravating circumstance that the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of a burglary. Therefore, I dissent from that part of the opinion of the majority awarding the defendant a new capital sentencing proceeding.
Justice Meyer joins in this dissenting opinion.