news-record.com

RALEIGH - As they quizzed lawyers in a case that could decide whether executions will resume in North Carolina, state Supreme Court justices expressed frustration with conflicting laws put before them.

More than one justice suggested that the General Assembly could have cleaned up the matter in the past two years, rather than letting it fester. Those comments did not surprise some lawmakers, mainly Republicans, who filed legislation to end a deadlock over the death penalty.

"The legislature should not put the judicial system in the position of trying to divine the intent of the General Assembly in that type of circumstance," said Sen. Phil Berger, a Rockingham County Republican. "This is a situation where we've known for a long time it was being debated...and the General Assembly could easily have clarified what the policy-making branch of government intended."

Executions in North Carolina came to a stop in 2006 after a pair of separate cases. The first involved death-row inmates who raised questions about whether the death penalty was humanely applied.

But in the case before the court Tuesday, no individual death-row defendant's life is in the balance. Instead, the dispute centers on a conflict between the North Carolina Medical Board, which licenses doctors, and the Department of Correction, which executes prisoners.

At issue is what it means for a doctor to be "present" at an execution.

Lawyers for the Department of Correction argue existing law allows doctors to monitor the brain activity and other vital signs of prisons. Medical Board lawyers say it merely means to be in the room, likening their presence to "a potted plant."

The board has threatened to sanction any doctor who takes part in an execution. That has made it impossible for Correction officials to carry out executions under plans approved by the state's top elected officials.

Justices seemed reluctant to choose between two groups acting with seemingly equivalent grants of authority from the General Assembly.

"Why don't we send this right over where it belongs?" asked Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson. "What would be wrong with us construing the word 'present' very strictly, plainly, and letting the legislature take care of it?"

During the past two-year session, some legislators have indicated a willingness to break what amounts to a deadlock over capital punishment. But they are mainly Republicans, who are the minority in the House and Senate.

"It's not for lack of trying," said Rep. Laura Wiley, who added that she hoped the court's comments would help break the stalemate if their ruling doesn't.

Though death-penalty opponents have been equally unsuccessful in prodding legislators to abolish executions, the stalemate effectively serves the same purpose, although temporarily.

The court did not indicate when or how it might rule. Typically, the justices issue written opinions once a month. With executions stopped in the state, the court faces no deadline to act.

Berger said that he would refile legislation next year to break the deadlock, regardless of the court's decision. His bill, and a companion measure filed in the House last year, would have authorized doctors to take part in executions and forbade the Medical Board from taking action.

The fall election changed little in the makeup of the General Assembly, so it's likely that most top legislative leaders will return to their posts.

"It would be only fair to await the ruling of the court," said Senate President Pro Tempore Marc Basnight, a Manteo Democrat and his chamber's most powerful official.

Basnight describes himself as a proponent of capital punishment in murder cases where the killer is known for certain. But, he said the General Assembly avoided dealing with the death penalty over the past two years in deference to the courts, who have been hashing through various cases.

Contact Mark Binker at (919) 832-5549 or mark.binker@news-record.com