Court Opinion

ID: 9577725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:37:20.962405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:08.426255
License: Public Domain

Justice Billings
concurring in result.
When Williams I (State v. Williams, 304 N.C. 394, 284 S.E. 2d 437 (1981)) was decided by this Court, I was not a member of the Court and did not participate in the decision that the prosecution had “presented absolutely no evidence whatsoever which showed that Ms. Pierce’s killing was motivated by a desire to eliminate a potential witness.” 317 N.C. 474, 482, 346 S.E. 2d 405, 410. Because my review of the record on this appeal and of Williams I, unaided by oral argument, does not convince me that submission of the aggravating factor disapproved in Williams I was error, I concur only on the basis that the prior decision of this Court is the law of the case, binding upon the prosecution at the second sentencing hearing. Because the prosecutor clearly violated the mandate of this Court that the jury should not be allowed to consider as an aggravating factor that the victim was murdered in order to prevent her from identifying the robbers, I concur in the Court’s conclusion that the trial judge erred to the defendant’s prejudice in failing to intervene ex mero motu, and the defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing.
Justice MITCHELL joins in this concurring opinion.