Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment allow a state to give binding force to a capital defendant's instruction to counsel to completely forego the presentation of available mitigating evidence, rather than allowing counsel to present such evidence as counsel's chosen means of achieving the defendant's stated objective of avoiding a death sentence?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The defendant in this capital case, who stated his objective was not to receive a death sentence, instructed counsel to completely forego the presentation of mitigation evidence during the sentencing phase of his trial. Counsel alerted the trial court that this instruction was contrary to their advice and that, if allowed to do so, they would choose to present mitigating evidence that had previously been developed. Following binding North Carolina precedent, the trial court ordered counsel to follow the defendant’s instructions. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, declining to overturn its prior precedent. This case thus presents the following recurring and important question, on which lower courts are split: Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment allow a state to give binding force to a capital defendant’s instruction to counsel to completely forego the presentation of available mitigating evidence, rather than allowing counsel to present such evidence as counsel’s chosen means of achieving the defendant’s stated objective of avoiding a death sentence? i