State v. Hunt

• Decision Date: 11 September 2003
• Docket Number: No. 5A86-10.,5A86-10.
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Henry Lee HUNT.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

591 S.E.2d 502

357 N.C. 454

STATE of North Carolina v. Henry Lee HUNT.

No. 5A86-10.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 11, 2003.

ORDERS

The State petitions this Court to issue its writs of certiorari and prohibition to review the 9 September 2003 Order of the Honorable Gary Locklear, Superior Court Judge Presiding, staying the execution of capital defendant Henry Lee Hunt scheduled for Friday, 12 September 2003, moves the Court to prohibit further evidentiary hearing, and moves the Court to vacate the stay of execution entered by the trial court. Having reviewed the contentions of the parties and authorities cited by the parties, the Court hereby allows the State's petition for writ of certiorari for the limited purpose of entering the following order:

N.C.G.S. § 15-187 authorizes death by lethal injection as the sole manner of execution in North Carolina, and directs that "[a]ny person convicted of a criminal offense and sentenced to death shall be executed only by the administration of a lethal quantity of an ultrashort-acting barbiturate in combination with a chemical paralytic agent." N.C.G.S. § 15-187 (2001) (emphasis added). N.C.G.S. § 15-188 similarly provides: "In accordance with G.S. 15-187, the mode of executing a death sentence must in every case be by administering to the convict or felon a lethal quantity of an ultrashort-acting barbiturate in combination with a chemical paralytic agent until the convict or felon is dead." N.C.G.S. § 15-188 (2001) (emphasis added). The North Carolina Department of Correction (DOC) administers three drugs: thiopental sodium (a sedative that is commonly referred to by the trademark name, Pentothal); pancuronium bromide (a muscle relaxant that is commonly referred to by the trademark name, Pavulon); and potassium chloride (a drug that stops the heart from beating).

The reasonable interpretation of the statutes in question is that in using the word "only" in N.C.G.S. § 15-187, the Legislature limited the method of execution in North Carolina to lethal injection, as opposed to asphyxiation by gas or other methods, as had been the practice in North Carolina prior to the amendment of N.C.G.S. § 15-187 in 1998. Prior to 1983, the method of execution in North Carolina was asphyxiation by lethal gas. N.C.G.S. § 15-187 (1978). Effective 5 July 1983, the Legislature amended N.C.G.S. § 15-187 and other related statutes to provide that "at least five days prior to his execution date, [a person sentenced to death could] elect in writing to be executed by the administration of a lethal quantity of an ultrashort-acting barbiturate in combination with a chemical paralytic agent." Act of July 5, 1983, ch. 678, sec. 1, 1983 N.C. Sess. Laws 652. From 1983 until 1998, there were two methods of execution available in North Carolina—a death row inmate could elect to be executed by lethal injection, but if the inmate made no such election his execution would proceed by asphyxiation with a lethal gas. In 1998, the Legislature again amended N.C.G.S. § 15-187 and related statutes to make lethal injection the sole method of execution in North Carolina, thus eliminating asphyxiation with a lethal gas as an execution method. Act of Oct. 30, 1998, ch. 212, sec. 17.22(a), 1998 N.C. Sess. Laws 937, 1204. It was not until the 1998 amendment that the word "only" was inserted in N.C.G.S. § 15-187.

The addition of "only" to N.C.G.S. § 15-187 does not reflect a legislative intent to limit the drugs or chemicals that can be used during a lethal injection execution, but rather limits the method of execution in North Carolina solely to lethal injection instead of asphyxiation by lethal gas or some other method. See State v. Buckner, 351 N.C. 401, 408, 527 S.E.2d 307, 311 (2000)

(noting that "when interpreting a statute, courts must look to the intent of the legislature," and "`[i]ndividual expressions must be construed as a part of the composite whole and be accorded only that meaning which other modifying provisions and the clear intent and purpose of the act will permit.'") (quoting State v. Tew, 326 N.C. 732, 739, 392 S.E.2d 603, 607 (1990)). This Court has held that "[t]he will of the legislature `must be found from the language of the act, its legislative history and the circumstances surrounding its adoption which...