similar argument and holding that “[t]he Batson rule does not ... apply to eases where the state uses its peremptory strikes to remove potential jurors not excludable for cause who have expressed reservations about capital punishment”); accord, e.g., People v. Davis, 794 P.2d 159, 208-09 (Colo.1990) (en banc) (stating that “[w]e agree that it is not inappropriate for a prosecutor to use his [or her] peremptory challenges to exclude jurors who, although they have indicated they can follow the law, have expressed reservations about their ability faithfully to do so or who have indicated that they disagree with the judgment of the people acting through their legislature that certain crimes are deserving of the ultimate penalty”); State v. Brogden, 329 N.C. 534, 407 S.E.2d 158, 166 (1991) (<HOLDING>); State v. Bell, 305 S.C. 11, 406 S.E.2d 165,
holding that trial court did not err holding that a defendants exercise of peremptory challenges  is not denied or impaired when the defendant chooses to use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause holding that the trial court did not err under either the federal or north carolina constitutions by allowing the state to exercise peremptory challenges to remove potential jurors based on their qualms regarding capital punishment holding that the trial court did not err by allowing the prosecution to question prospective jurors regarding their ability to announce a death sentence in an appropriate case holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce