## Facts

- Charles King was at home in Plymouth, North Carolina, when Reche Smith knocked on the door early on March 10, 2001 and asked for water.
- After King let him inside, Smith choked King unconscious, bound King’s wrists and ankles with tape and an electrical cord, taped over King’s nose and mouth, and left him under a bed, causing death by asphyxiation.
- While King was dying, Smith searched the house and took cash, a wallet, a cell phone, a bank card, keys, and King’s car.
- Smith drove to Williamston, rented a motel room, and purchased crack cocaine.
- The next day, Smith used the victim’s car while committing another theft; police pursued him after witnesses reported the car’s license plate.
- During voir dire at Smith’s capital trial, a prospective juror initially indicated that evidence of drug use could affect impartiality, but later stated he could follow the law and the court’s instructions despite personal views.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror who expressed negative views about drug use but later stated he could follow the law.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support first-degree murder based on premeditation and deliberation and under the felony-murder rule.
3. Whether the capital sentencing proceeding contained reversible error, including in the submission and instructions on aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and whether the death sentence was disproportionate.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed Smith’s convictions for first-degree murder and felony larceny and affirmed the death sentence.
- The court held the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying the for-cause challenge because the juror ultimately affirmed an ability to follow the law and instructions.
- The court held the evidence supported first-degree murder on both theories submitted to the jury (premeditation/deliberation and felony murder).
- The court found no reversible error in the sentencing phase and concluded the death sentence was not imposed under passion or prejudice and was not disproportionate in statutory review.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court’s ruling on a challenge for cause is reviewed for abuse of discretion and receives substantial deference because the judge observes the juror’s demeanor and credibility.
- A prospective juror who initially expresses potential bias may be deemed qualified if subsequent questioning establishes the juror can set aside personal opinions and decide the case under the law and the court’s instructions.
- Evidence of a deliberate killing coupled with a contemporaneous theft can support first-degree murder both by premeditation and deliberation and under felony-murder.
- In a capital appeal, the reviewing court examines whether the sentence resulted from passion, prejudice, or arbitrary factors; whether aggravating circumstances were supported by the evidence; and whether the death sentence is excessive or disproportionate compared to similar cases.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Smith’s capital conviction and death sentence, concluding that the trial judge acted within discretion in retaining a juror who ultimately committed to follow the law, that the evidence supported first-degree murder on multiple theories, and that the sentencing phase and proportionality review disclosed no reversible error.


State v. Smith, 359 N.C. 199, 607 S.E.2d 607 (N.C. 2005)