One roadblock to resuming executions in North Carolina is gone, but others remain after a ruling by the N.C. Supreme Court yesterday.
In a 4-3 decision, the state's highest court upheld a ruling that said the N.C. Medical Board overstepped its authority when it issued a position statement saying it could punish doctors for participating in an execution.
Other lawsuits over the state's execution procedures remain, including a lawsuit in Wake Superior Court challenging how the N.C. Council of State changed execution procedures in 2007 to require someone with medical training to play a part in the execution. The change put the execution procedures in conflict with the medical board's opinion.
"This is not a decision that starts the execution machinery again immediately," said Mark Kleinschmidt, the executive director of the Fair Trial Initiative in Durham, which works to improve the system of lawyers who represent poor defendants in death-penalty cases.
"It's hard to pin it down to a specific timeline, but it's going to take some time for courts to resolve these separate issues," Kleinschmidt said.
There hasn't been an execution in the state since Samuel Flippen of Forsyth County died by lethal injection in August 2006 for killing his 2-year-old stepdaughter. At present, 163 people are on the state's death row.
In yesterday's decision, the seven justices were deciding an appeal by the medical board of an October 2007 decision in Wake Superior Court.
Writing for the majority, Justice Edward Thomas Brady wrote that allowing the board to discipline its doctors for participating in executions would elevate the board over the General Assembly.
Among the issues in the case is what a state law means when it requires a doctor to be "present" at the execution.
Simply being there does not violate medical ethics, according to the medical board, which said in January 2007 that monitoring the inmate's pain or giving directions about how to carry out the execution would be ethical violations.
Brady wrote that "common sense" says that legislators intended doctors to do more than just be present at an execution.
A clergy member, an attorney and the warden are all at an execution in professional roles, so it's illogical to say that a doctor was not intended to have a duty there as well, Brady said.
Justice Robin E. Hudson dissented, arguing that it wasn't the court's proper role to decide the issue. She was joined by Chief Justice Sarah Parker and Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson.
The legislature created the medical board, gave it broad power to discipline doctors, both for their work and for what they do outside of their practice, Hudson said, and legislators can modify the medical board's powers to exclude executions if they so wish.
"It is not for this Court to do so," she wrote.
A spokesman for the N.C. Department of Correction had no comment about the ruling, other than to note that executions remain on hold.
A spokeswoman for Gov. Bev Perdue said that the ruling gave "important guidance" about how to go forward with executions.
"Gov. Perdue continues to support the death penalty, and she will continue to monitor the other pending legal issues surrounding the state's execution policy," said the spokeswoman, Chrissy Pearson.
Dr. George L. Saunders III, the president of the medical board, said he was "heartened" by the dissent in the case.
"This board has taken the position that active physician participation in executions runs counter to the core values of medicine," Saunders said. "That position has not changed."
■ Dan Galindo can be reached at 727-7377 or at dgalindo@wsjournal.com.
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement