battery has been definitively established in a court of law, should not be permitted to evade the civil regulatory scheme of the Registration Programs, the purpose of which is to protect the general public, merely because no punitive sentence was pronounced against him. First, the State’s argument refers to “no punitive sentence.” In fact, the judgment did not impose a sentence upon defendant. This passage does not refer to whether the conditions imposed upon the prayer for judgment constituted punishment. Second, whether a condition of a prayer for judgment continued constituted “punishment” is a question of law for the courts to determine. It is not a question of fact as to which the parties, on appeal, can stipulate. See State v. Rogers, 275 N.C. 411, 421, 168 S.E.2d 345, 350 (1969) (<HOLDING>). I would affirm the order of the learned trial
holding that what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a question of law holding the constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment may be waived holding that a cruel and unusual punishment claim is not jurisdictional and therefore may not be raised for the first time on appeal holding execution of the mentally retarded constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved