(a) The State, in its discretion, may elect to try a defendant capitally or noncapitally for first degree murder, even if evidence of an aggravating circumstance exists. The State may agree to accept a sentence of life imprisonment for a defendant at any point in the prosecution of a capital felony, even if evidence of an aggravating circumstance exists.
(b) A sentence of death may not be imposed upon a defendant convicted of a capital felony unless the State has given notice of its intent to seek the death penalty. Notice of intent to seek the death penalty shall be given to the defendant and filed with the court on or before the date of the pretrial conference in capital cases required by Rule 24 of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts, or the arraignment, whichever is later. A court may discipline or sanction the State for failure to comply with the time requirements in Rule 24, but shall not declare a case as noncapital as a consequence of such failure. In addition to any discipline or sanctions the court may impose, the court shall continue the case for a sufficient time so that the defendant is not prejudiced by any delays in holding the hearing required by Rule 24.
(c) If the State has not given notice of its intent to seek the death penalty prior to trial, the trial shall be conducted as a noncapital proceeding, and the court, upon adjudication of the defendant's guilt of first degree murder, shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of Article 100 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes, the State may agree to accept a sentence of life imprisonment for a defendant upon remand from the Supreme Court of North Carolina of a capital case for resentencing or upon an order of resentencing by a court in a State or federal post-conviction proceeding. If the State exercises its discretion and does agree to accept a sentence of life imprisonment for the defendant, then the court shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment. (2001-81, s. 3; 2012-136, s. 2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case:
State v. Defoe, 691 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. 2010).
State v. Defoe, 691 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. 2010).
· cites it 54× “§ 15A-2000(a) & enacting N.C.G.S. § 15A-2004 (2009)) (collectively "2001 amendments").”
State v. Ward, 555 S.E.2d 251 (N.C. 2001).
· cites it 12× “Laws ___, ___ (creating N.C.G.S. § 15A-2004, "Prosecutorial discretion").”
State v. Allen, 626 S.E.2d 271 (N.C. 2006).
· cites it 5× “Therefore, the assignments of error are overruled. PENALTY PHASE ISSUES Defendant claims the prosecution abused its discretion by proceeding capitally in this case after enactment of N.”
State v. Spivey, 579 S.E.2d 251 (N.C. 2003).
· cites it 6× “The district attorney decides who shall be initially charged, drafts criminal indictments for submission to the grand jury, prepares informations, decides which cases are ripe for dismissal, negotiates pleas (and does so in a majority of cases), and most recently, was given the…”
State v. Smith, 607 S.E.2d 607 (N.C. 2005).
· cites it 6× “"The district attorney decides who shall be initially charged, drafts criminal indictments for submission to the grand jury, prepares informations, decides which cases are ripe for dismissal, negotiates pleas (and does so in a majority of cases), and most recently, was given the…”
State v. Thompson, 604 S.E.2d 850 (N.C. 2004).
· cites it 3× “” Defendant further contends that the argument misconstrues the law because the prosecutor, not defendant, was responsible for the capital trial, citing N.C.G.S. § 15A-2004(a) (2003) (“The State may agree to accept a sentence of life imprisonment for a defendant at any point in…”
State v. Goode, 710 S.E.2d 301 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 11× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2004(d) (2009). Defendant’s argument is essentially that because the original judgments did not specify that the death sentences were to be consecutive, they were made concurrent by operation of law, so that the mandate of N.”
State v. Grainger, 766 S.E.2d 280 (N.C. 2014).
· cites it 3× “2 applies to her because any first-degree murder trial involves a “capital felony” within the purview of N.C.G.S. § 15A-2004, regardless of whether she was tried capitally or not.”
State v. Smith, 600 S.E.2d 464 (N.C. 2005).
· cites it 3× “"The district attorney decides who shall be initially charged, drafts criminal indictments for submission to the grand jury, prepares informations, decides which cases are ripe for dismissal, negotiates pleas (and does so in a majority of cases), and most recently, was given the…”
State v. Ramseur, 843 S.E.2d 106 (N.C. 2020).
· cites it 3× “This legislation, echoing our existing constitutional safeguards, provided that “[n]o person shall be subject to or given a sentence of death or shall be executed pursuant to any judgment that was sought or obtained on the basis of race.”
State v. Gillard, 909 S.E.2d 226 (N.C. 2024).
· cites it 3× “However, the Supreme Court of the United States has explicitly stated that “the [United States] Constitution does not prohibit the States from ‘death qualifying’ juries in capital cases.”
State v. Ramseur, 843 S.E.2d 106 (N.C. 2020).
· cites it 3× “This legislation, echoing our existing constitutional safeguards, provided that “[n]o person shall be subject to or given a sentence of death or shall be executed pursuant to any judgment that was sought or obtained on the basis of race.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2004(a): 7 cases
State v. Defoe, 691 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. 2010).
“§ 15A-2000(a) & enacting N.C.G.S. § 15A-2004 (2009)) (collectively "2001 amendments").”
State v. Allen, 626 S.E.2d 271 (N.C. 2006).
“Therefore, the assignments of error are overruled. PENALTY PHASE ISSUES Defendant claims the prosecution abused its discretion by proceeding capitally in this case after enactment of N.”
State v. Thompson, 604 S.E.2d 850 (N.C. 2004).
“” Defendant further contends that the argument misconstrues the law because the prosecutor, not defendant, was responsible for the capital trial, citing N.C.G.S. § 15A-2004(a) (2003) (“The State may agree to accept a sentence of life imprisonment for a defendant at any point in…”
State v. Gillard, 909 S.E.2d 226 (N.C. 2024).
“However, the Supreme Court of the United States has explicitly stated that “the [United States] Constitution does not prohibit the States from ‘death qualifying’ juries in capital cases.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2004(d): 1 case
State v. Goode, 710 S.E.2d 301 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011).
“N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2004(d) (2009). Defendant’s argument is essentially that because the original judgments did not specify that the death sentences were to be consecutive, they were made concurrent by operation of law, so that the mandate of N.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.