guilt portion of the trial, the cross-examination of defendant’s experts, and the rebuttal testimony presented on behalf of the State by Dr. Hazelrigg, all contradicted defendant’s experts. Dr. Fozdar’s acknowledgment that defendant knows right from wrong and concession that he did not believe defendant’s disorder caused him to commit murder were at least somewhat inconsistent with his assessment that defendant’s mental or emotional disturbance “influenced” the murder. Also, Dr. Hazelrigg, testifying for the State, contradicted the opinions of defendant’s experts and did not find any mental disorder or dysfunction that would interfere with defendant’s ability to control his behavior or understand right from wrong. See also State v. Duke, 360 N.C. 110, 131-32, 623 S.E.2d 11, 25 (2005) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 855, 166 L. Ed. 2d 96
holding that the trial court correctly refused to give the jury a peremptory instruction on the f2 mitigating circumstance when an expert testified about inconsistent diagnoses of the defendant thereby making evidence of the defendants mental or emotional disturbance    not uncontroverted holding that the giving of a felony murder instruction is not a relevant mitigating circumstance when the defendant acted alone to kill the victim holding that the trial court properly refused defendants instruction because it invaded the province of the jury holding that no mental health expert is competent to express an opinion about whether a particular set of facts constitutes a mitigating circumstance because that would invade the province of the judge and jury recognizing the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance as a mitigating factor