concurring in result.
I concur in the result on these grounds: (1) Defendant’s statements to Officer Poole were made voluntarily and were not the product of an “in-custody interrogation.” (2) By its decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 33 L.Ed. 2d 346, 92 S.Ct. 2726, decided June 29, 1972, the Supreme Court of the United States; holding that punishment by death is not permissible under statutory provisions such as those incorporated in present North Carolina statutes, has invalidated and rendered obsolete that portion of G.S. 7A-457 (a) which relates solely to a “capital case.”
As stated in my concurring in result opinion in State v. Mems, ante 674, 190 S.E. 2d 174, I do not share the view that the State’s counsel have standing to challenge the constitutionality of G.S. 7A-457 (a). Surely, the General Assembly *684has greater authority to declare and determine the State’s policy and position than the State’s prosecuting attorneys.
Justices Higgins and Sharp join in this concurring in result opinion.