concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the result reached by the majority on the guilt phase of this case.
I am unable to join, however, in the majority’s conclusion that the cumulative effect of the several errors acknowledged by the majority to have been committed in the sentencing phase was not prejudicial. In face of these errors and with his life hanging in the balance, defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing.
Also, for the reasons stated in my dissent in State v. Rook, 304 N.C. 201, 283 S.E. 2d 732 (1981), I believe it to be prejudicial error not to require the jury to specify those mitigating circumstances which it finds to exist. For this additional reason defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing.
My vote, therefore, is to remand the case for a new sentencing hearing.