State v. Polke, 361 N.C. 65

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed Alexander Charles Polke's capital sentencing proceeding after he pleaded guilty to first-degree murder for killing a sheriff's deputy and injuring another deputy. The court rejected challenges concerning jury voir dire, mitigating and aggravating circumstances, prosecutorial closing argument, preservation issues, and proportionality review. The court found no prejudicial error and left the death sentence undisturbed.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's pretrial request to question prospective jurors about the relative costs of execution and life imprisonment, particularly because the court later allowed defendant to ask the question during jury selection.
2. The doctrine of invited error applies when the trial court erroneously submits the N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000(f)(1) mitigating circumstance at defendant's request; defendant therefore could not obtain relief for the submission of that factor.
3. The trial court did not plainly err by failing to submit the N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000(f)(2) and (f)(6) mitigating circumstances because defendant did not produce substantial evidence supporting either circumstance.
4. A trial court's failure to submit an aggravating circumstance to the jury is not structural error requiring automatic reversal.
5. The State's argument that jurors should base their decision on the evidence and law rather than mercy was not grossly improper, so the trial court did not plainly err by failing to intervene ex mero motu.
6. The evidence supported the three aggravating circumstances found by the jury, the death sentence was not imposed under passion, prejudice, or another arbitrary factor, and the sentence was not excessive or disproportionate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by initially denying defendant's request to question prospective jurors about the relative costs of execution and life imprisonment.
2. Whether defendant invited any error by requesting submission of the statutory mitigating circumstance concerning the absence of a significant history of prior criminal activity.
3. Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to submit statutory mitigating circumstances concerning mental or emotional disturbance and impaired capacity.
4. Whether failure to submit a statutory aggravating circumstance constituted structural error requiring a new capital sentencing proceeding.
5. Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to intervene ex mero motu during the State's closing argument concerning mercy.
6. Whether previously decided challenges involving double jeopardy, pattern jury instructions, indictment allegations, and the sufficiency of a short-form indictment warranted departure from prior North Carolina precedent.
7. Whether the evidence supported the aggravating circumstances found by the jury and whether the death sentence was imposed under passion, prejudice, or another arbitrary factor or was excessive or disproportionate.

Disposition

other