Court Opinion

ID: 9848248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:15:19.935099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:09.726325
License: Public Domain

*670Justice Sharp,
concurring further in the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Bobbitt.
To Chief Justice Bobbitt’s succinct interpretation of the effect of the Furman decision upon our statutes which have specified the punishment for first-degree murder, rape, first-degree burglary, and arson, I can add nothing. He has expressed my views exactly. However, I make the following comments:
In my view the death sentence is not constitutionally impermissible as cruel and unusual punishment for first-degree murder and rape. The question of capital punishment, however, is one of momentous public policy to be determined by the legislature. It is not for this Court to declare either by unanimous decision or four-three division.
In 1949 the legislature, in effect, made the punishment for first-degree murder, rape, first-degree burglary, and arson death or life imprisonment as the jury, in its discretion, might determine. In 1972 the Furman decision wrecked that plan by outlawing the imposition of the death penalty under any statute which permitted either judge or jury to impose it as a matter of discretion. On 18 January 1973 this Court, in the four-three Waddell decision, completed the destruction of the legislative plan by making the death sentence mandatory for the four crimes when committed after that date. Since these two decisions the legislature has not rewritten the affected statutes. Surely it is time for the General Assembly to exercise its constitutional, legislative prerogative. N. C. Const, art. I, § 6 declares, “The legislative, executive, and supreme judicial power of the State government shall be forever separate and distinct from each other.”