State v. Hurt, 208 N.C. App. 1

Hurt pled guilty to second-degree murder in 2002 as part of a plea deal to dismiss related charges.
Initial sentencing placed Hurt in the maximum aggravated range; prior appellate proceedings questioned the HAC aggravator.
On remand, a jury trial on aggravating factors occurred in 2008; the State pursued HAC as the sole aggravator.
Evidence at trial included extensive forensic testimony and testimony from Parlier, the codefendant, who claimed Hurt was not the killer.
The defense sought a mitigated sentence and admitted mitigating evidence, but the court found HAC outweighed mitigation, resulting in an aggravated sentence.
The Court of Appeals vacated, holding that admission of testimonial forensic evidence violated Hurt’s confrontation rights and warranted a new sentencing trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation applies at non-capital jury sentencing	State argues Crawford does not apply at non-capital sentencing.	Hurt contends Crawford/Melendez-Diaz require confrontation at sentencing when facts raise sentence.	Confrontation applies to jury sentencing when it determines aggravating facts.
Admission of testimonial forensic evidence at sentencing	State relied on SBI serology/DNA reports to prove guilt-related facts.	Hurt argues Melendez-Diaz requires live testimony or unavailability and cross-examination for forensic evidence.	Admission violated Confrontation Clause; not harmless.
Harmless error analysis for confrontation violation	State asserts prosecutorial evidence was cumulative and harmless.	Hurt asserts error was not harmless given importance of contested forensic testimony.	Error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; new sentencing trial required.
Remedy for Confrontation violation	Remand for new sentencing proceedings would be unnecessary if error harmless.	New sentencing trial necessary to cure Confrontation violation.	New sentencing trial granted.

State v. Locklear, 363 N.C. 438 (2009) (Melendez-Diaz applies to forensic testimony)
State v. Nobles, 357 N.C. 433 (2003) (Confrontation at capital sentencing requires live testimony when possible)
State v. Sings, 182 N.C.App. 162 (2007) (is distinguishable; non-capital sentencing context differs from this case)
State v. Lopez, 363 N.C. 535 (2009) (discusses procedures in jury sentencing under Blakely framework)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing maximum penalty must be submitted to jury)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (upward departures require jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause limits testimonial hearsay at trial and related settings)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Booker extends Apprendi to advisory guidelines; affects sentencing framework)