State v. Hamad ( 1988 )


Menu:
  • Chief Judge HEDRICK

    dissenting.

    I disagree with the majority in awarding defendant Hamad a new trial based on the suggestion that the trial judge erred in not allowing Hamad’s counsel to further cross-examine the co-defendant Wells. Hamad did not offer or request to cross-examine Wells for the record in the absence of the jury. Assuming arguen-do, the trial judge erred in not allowing Hamad’s counsel to cross-examine the witness, we cannot determine whether such error was prejudicial because nothing appears in the record from which we could determine whether such error was prejudicial. Furthermore, I am persuaded that any error in not allowing Hamad’s counsel to cross-examine the co-defendant after the State had done so is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. I vote to find no error as to defendant Hamad.

    With respect to defendant Wells, I dissent from the part of the majority opinion awarding Wells a new sentencing hearing. In my opinion, the trial judge merely exercised his discretion in not finding the mitigating factor of “substantial assistance” as set forth in G.S. 90-95(h)(5).

Document Info

Docket Number: 883SC277

Judges: Johnson, Parker, Hedrick

Filed Date: 12/20/1988

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/11/2024