406 S.E.2d 852 (N.C. 1991), 385A84, State v. Green

Docket Nº:385A84.
Citation:406 S.E.2d 852, 329 N.C. 686
Party Name:STATE of North Carolina v. Harvey Lee GREEN, Jr.
Case Date:August 14, 1991
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 852

406 S.E.2d 852 (N.C. 1991)

329 N.C. 686

STATE of North Carolina

v.

Harvey Lee GREEN, Jr.

No. 385A84.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 1991

Page 853

[329 N.C. 688] Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen. by James J. Coman, Sr. Deputy Atty. Gen., Joan H. Byers, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., William N. Farrell, Jr., Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., and Barry S. McNeill, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State.

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender by David W. Dorey, Asst. Appellate Defender and Louis D. Bilionis, Asst. Appellate Defender, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.

E. Ann Christian and Robert E. Zaytoun, Raleigh, for North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.

John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Asheville, for North Carolina Ass'n of Black Lawyers, amicus curiae.

WEBB, Justice.

The defendant has made 23 assignments of error. The subjects most of these assignments of error cover should not recur at a new sentencing hearing and we shall not discuss them. We shall discuss two separate assignments of error under each of which the defendant contends the bills of indictment against him should be quashed on constitutional grounds.

The defendant first says that there was racial discrimination in the selection of the foreman of the grand jury which returned the bills against him. He contends this violates the rule of State v. Cofield, 320 N.C. 297, 357 S.E.2d 622 (1987) and the Constitution of North Carolina. With certain exceptions not applicable to this case a defendant who pleads guilty waives his right to challenge the plea on constitutional grounds. State v. Reynolds, 298 N.C. 380, 259 S.E.2d 843 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941, 100 S.Ct. 2164, 64 L.Ed.2d 795 (1980). The defendant, by pleading guilty, waived any right he had under Cofield. This assignment of error is overruled.

The defendant also contends that the manner in which our death penalty statute, N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000 (1988), is enforced violates the equal protection clauses of U.S. Const. amend. XIV and N.C. Const. art. I, § 19. He also contends it violates the U.S. Const. amend. VIII, which amendment proscribes cruel and unusual punishment. The defendant bases this argument on two statistical studies of the imposition of the death penalty. One of these studies was conducted by Professors Samuel Gross and Robert Mauro and is published as Gross and Mauro, Patterns of Death: An Analysis...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP