State v. Bullock

Chief Justice EXUM

concurring.

Were the Court deciding for the first time the issue of the admissibility of the testimony of Dr. Schaffer and Dr. Schroeder, I would hold this testimony admissible only for corroborative purposes for the reasons stated by then Chief Justice Billings, dissenting, in State v. Aguallo, 318 N.C. 590, 350 S.E. 2d 76 (1986). Since the majority opinion in Aguaito controls this issue favorably to the state’s position and I am bound thereby, I concur in the opinion and decision here.