DEFENDANT CAN ARGUE SENTENCE TO JURY

State v. Lopez, 363 N.C. 535 (2009) is the latest case on what is allowed in NC on arguing punishment in NC.  As I read the case, counsel can argue the max the defendant is actually facing based on his prior record level.  Arguing outside those parameters is treading on thin ice.

Defendant, in trial for aiding and abetting armed robbery and murder, had statutory right to inform the jury of the punishment prescribed for the offenses for which he was being tried. State v. Belfield, 2001, 144 N.C.App. 320, 548 S.E.2d 549. Criminal Law  2160

A defendant has a statutory right to have the jury informed of the punishment prescribed for the offenses for which he is being tried. State v. Peoples, 2000, 141 N.C.App. 115, 539 S.E.2d 25. Criminal Law  2159

It is proper for a defendant to advise the jury of the possible consequence of imprisonment following conviction to encourage the jury to give the matter its close attention and to decide it only after due and careful consideration. State v. Peoples, 2000, 141 N.C.App. 115, 539 S.E.2d 25. Criminal Law  2159

In prosecution for attempted first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, defendant should have been allowed to inform the jury at closing argument of the punishment for the offenses. State v. Peoples, 2000, 141 N.C.App. 115, 539 S.E.2d 25. Criminal Law  2160

Criminal defendant is entitled to inform jury of punishment prescribed for offense for which he is being tried. State v. Cabe, 1998, 131 N.C.App. 310, 506 S.E.2d 749. Criminal Law  2159

A refusal to permit accused to read to jury the statutory provisions pertaining to punishment for first and second-degree murder and for manslaughter was error in proceeding in which accused was convicted of voluntary manslaughter; such error was prejudicial error entitling accused to new trial, in view of fact that the evidence of his guilt was not overwhelming. State v. Walters, 1978, 240 S.E.2d 628, 294 N.C. 311. Criminal Law  1171.1(3); Criminal Law  2086

Statute secures to counsel the right to inform jury of the punishment prescribed for the offense for which accused is being tried and counsel may exercise such right by reading the punishment provisions of the statute to jury. State v. Walters, 1978, 240 S.E.2d 628, 294 N.C. 311. Criminal Law  2160

Defendant was entitled to inform jury of punishment that might be imposed upon conviction. State v. Walters, 1977, 235 S.E.2d 906, 33 N.C.App. 521, affirmed 240 S.E.2d 628, 294 N.C. 311. Criminal Law  2160

Court committed reversible error where, in burglary prosecution, it failed to permit defense counsel to state mandatory punishment for first-degree burglary in his final jury argument. State v. Irick, 1977, 231 S.E.2d 833, 291 N.C. 480. Criminal Law  1171.1(3); Criminal Law  2160

It is permissible for criminal defendant in argument to inform jury of statutory punishment provided for crime for which he is being tried. State v. McMorris, 1976, 225 S.E.2d 553, 290 N.C. 286. Criminal Law  2159

Denial of permission to defense counsel to inform jury that consequence of conviction of first-degree burglary was mandatory life sentence was an unwarranted and prejudicial restriction on defendant's right to argue fully the "whole case" as permitted by statute and defendant was entitled to new trial in the burglary case. State v. McMorris, 1976, 225 S.E.2d 553, 290 N.C. 286. Criminal Law  1171.1(3); Criminal Law  2160