ATKINSON

v.

NORTH CAROLINA; HILL V. NORTH CAROLINA; ROSEBORO V. NORTH CAROLINA; WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA; SANDERS V. NORTH CAROLINA; THOMAS V. LEEKE, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR; ATKINSON V. NORTH CAROLINA

Citator

Cited By

• Corbitt v. New Jersey, 439 U.S. 212 (U.S. 1978)
  …icted of murder in the second degree shall suffer imprisonment for not more than 30 years.” Manslaughter is separately defined in §2A: 113-5 (West 1969). The provision for the death penalty in §2A: 113-4 was invalidated in Funicello v. New Jersey, 403 U. S. 948 (1971). On remand, the New Jersey Supreme Court held the death penalty provision severable from the statute and ruled that life imprisonment was to be imposed upon all defendants convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, State v. Funicello, 60 N.…
• Gray v. Lucas, 677 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1982)
  …ght’s opinion on their validity was irrelevant. The district court possessed the transcript of the voir dire and could determine independently whether any of the jurors had been incorrectly excluded. The defect identified in Funicello v. New Jersey, 403 U.S. 948, 91 S.Ct. 2278, 29 L.Ed.2d 859 (1971), is thus not present in this case. . The trial judge’s instructions carefully adhered to this distinction. He advised the jury you shall weigh the aggravating circumstances, if any, and the mitigating circumst…
• Miller v. State OF N.C., 583 F.2d 701 (4th Cir. 1978)
  …remains in doubt, the general rule requiring objection before verdict does not apply.” 220 S.E. 2d at 339. Accord: State v. White, 286 N.C. 395, 211 S.E. 2d 445 (1975); State v. Williams, 276 N.C. 703, 174 S.E. 2d 503 (1970); rev’d on other grounds, 403 U.S. 948, 91 S.Ct. 2290, 29 L.Ed.2d 860 (1971); State v. Miller, 271 N.C. 646, 157 S.E. 2d 335 (1967). Under this rule the first attention of the reviewing court is to consider if the challenged argument was improper and, if so, whether it was improper to th…