Court Opinion

ID: 9569307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:12:43.772832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:53:12.837590
License: Public Domain

*147Justice MARTIN
concurring.
Although I concur in the well-reasoned majority opinion, it is appropriate to discuss the meaning of “significant” as used in N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000(f)(l). The majority opinion emphasizes “significant” without any explanation. “Significant” means “having or likely to have influence or effect.” Rutledge v. Tultex Corp., 308 N.C. 85, 101, 301 S.E. 2d 359, 370 (1983). Here, “significant” means that the activity is likely to have influence or effect upon the determination by the jury of its recommended sentence.
Why did the legislature restrict the prior criminal activity to “significant” activity? Simply answered, the legislature could envision cases in which a defendant had a history of criminal activity but it was of such a nature that it would not be likely to influence or affect the jury’s decision of whether to recommend a life or death sentence. In other words, the prior criminal activity could be found by the jury to be completely irrelevant to the issue of sentencing. The prior activity of the defendant could be found by the jury to be completely unworthy of consideration in arriving at its decision. There could be evidence of prior criminal activity in one case that would have no influence or effect on the jury’s verdict, which, in another case, could be the pivotal evidence.
Although the requested mitigating circumstance depended upon evidence that the jury ultimately found supported an aggravating circumstance, had the mitigating circumstance been presented to the jury it could have found that the criminal activity described by such evidence was not significant to its decision. Arguably, the submission of the mitigating circumstance could have affected the jury’s finding with respect to the aggravating circumstance. Any aspect of defendant’s character, record, or other circumstance, supported by evidence by either defendant or the state, or both, should be considered by the jury. State v. Irwin, 304 N.C. 93, 282 S.E. 2d 439 (1981).