With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is given as to a mitigating circumstance, the only question that remains is how much weight the jury will give the circumstance. Defendant argues that, contrary to the jury instructions given in this case, the jury cannot decide a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance has no weight after being given a peremptory instruction which states that all of the evidence tends to show the existence of the mitigating circumstance. The trial court instructed the jury that all the evidence tended to show each particular mitigating circumstance but that the jury must determine if the circumstance existed and had value. We conclude that the trial court’s peremptory instructions for nonstatutory mitigating circumstances were correct. See State v. Lynch, 340 N.C. 435, 475, 459 S.E.2d 679, 699 (1995) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1143, 134 L. Ed. 2d

A: holding that jury instructions were not erroneous when they substantially conformed to section 61012
B: holding that written instructions did not cure erroneous oral instruction
C: holding that identical jury instructions regarding nonstatutory mitigating circumstances were not erroneous
D: holding that if jury instructions viewed as a whole fairly state the applicable law to the jury the failure to give particular instructions will not be error
C.