Court Opinion

ID: 9583655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:40:55.498116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:30.072295
License: Public Domain

Justice ExuM
dissenting as to sentence.
In this case the trial court, on its own motion and without request from defendant,1 submitted the following issue to the jury during the sentencing phase: “Does the defendant have a significant history of prior criminal activity?” Because there was plenary, uncontradicted evidence showing that defendant did have a significant history of prior criminal activity,2 the jury naturally answered this issue “Yes.” Thus the jury in effect was *84permitted to consider an additional aggravating circumstance which is not permitted by our statute.
I cannot agree with the majority’s position that the result is no different than had the issue been submitted in proper form, ie., “The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity,” G.S. 15A-2000(f)(l), and answered “No.” First, the issue, absent a request from the defendant and in light of the evidence adduced, should not have been submitted at all. Defendant has the burden of proof on mitigating factors. State v. Johnson, 298 N.C. 47, 257 S.E. 2d 597 (1979). Here, defendant failed to carry that burden and apparently conceded as much at his trial. There was, therefore, no basis for the submission of the issue. Second, for a jury to fail to find a mitigating fact is not the same as affirmatively finding a fact which can only be considered aggravating. When the jury is permitted to do this and when the aggravating fact is not permitted by the statute, I think error occurs which requires a new sentencing hearing.
For the reasons stated in my dissent in State v. Johnson, 298 N.C. 355, 378, 259 S.E. 2d 752, 766 (1979), I think it was error for the trial judge to fail to instruct the jury upon defendant’s request that if it could not agree on a sentence, the court would impose a sentence of life imprisonment.
I vote, therefore, for a new sentencing hearing.

. The record fails to reveal a request from defendant’s counsel for the submission of this mitigating circumstance, although defendant’s counsel did introduce the evidence of his previous criminal activity. On oral argument defendant’s counsel advised the Court that no request for the submission of such an issue was made. I must assume that defense counsel did not request this instruction particularly in the form in which it was given.

. Evidence of the following convictions, dates and dispositions was introduced:
(1) Simple assault, 15 March 1974, ordered to pay court costs.
(2) Larceny, 24 September 1974, six months suspended sentence with probation for four years, $25 and costs.
(3) Trespassing, 18 July 1975, six months suspended sentence with probation for two years, costs.
(4) Public drunkenness, 19-July 1975, released for time served in jail — 4 days.
(5) Two counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle, 6 September 1978, two years imprisonment.
(6) Use of profane language, 11 December 1979, thirty days suspended sentence, $10 and costs.
(7) Damage to real property, 24 July 1980, seven months suspended sentence with probation for three years upon payment of costs, $25 fine and $105 restitution.
(8) Assault on a female, 29 April 1981, thirty days suspended sentence with probation for two years (he was released for 12 days served in jail), costs remitted.
*84(9) Simple assault, 5 June 1981, released for time served in jail — 14 days.
Defendant had compiled the above record even though he was only 23 years old at the time of trial. Thus the jury could not have answered the question as posed other than affirmatively.