COPELAND, Justice.
Defendant brings forward numerous assignments of error1 relating to the guilt determination phase of his trial and to the sentencing phase of his trial. After a careful consideration of these assignments, as well as the record before us, we find no error in any of these proceedings and affirm the judgments.
Guilt Phase
I.
Defendant contends that prior to the guilt-innocence phase of the trial, the trial court erred in “death-qualifying” the jury because a “death-qualified” jury is allegedly prosecution prone, i.e., more likely to convict a defendant, and thus is constitutionally unacceptable. This Court has repeatedly held that North Carolina’s jury selection process in first degree murder cases is constitutional. State v. Maynard, 311 N.C. 1, 316 S.E. 2d 197 (1984). This assignment of error is overruled.
[12]*12II.
Defendant next assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his pretrial motion to bar the imposition of the death penalty on the basis that the prosecutorial discretion to seek or not to seek the death penalty violates the defendant’s right to due process.2 The defendant contends that the death penalty was unconstitutionally applied in the case sub judice due to the prosecutor’s exercise of discretion in determining that his case would be tried as a capital case. The defendant relies on two cases, which arguably could have factors in aggravation, in which the prosecutor in the same judicial district in which the defendant was tried permitted the defendants to plead guilty to second degree murder. State v. Coy Devore (81CRS12679, Mecklenburg County) and State v. Larry Wilson (82CRS17018, Mecklenburg County).
Under the legal system of this State, the prosecutor has the authority and duty to use his best judgment in deciding which cases to pursue and which penalties to seek. Unless defendants show that the prosecutor’s selectivity is systematically based on race, religion or some other arbitrary classification, Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 7 L.Ed. 2d 446 (1962), the fact that one case possesses a strong fact situation which would justify seeking the death penalty, while another case does not, does not constitute a constitutional violation.
The United States Supreme Court, in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 49 L.Ed. 2d 859 (1976) and Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 49 L.Ed. 2d 913 (1976), rejected the argument that prosecutorial discretion invalidated the death penalty statutes because it allowed impermissible discretion. The fact that discretionary stages in the legal process exist, does not, by itself, show that the death penalty is capriciously imposed. The arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty with which we are concerned occurs only when the punishing authority operates without any guidance.
[13]*13Thus, since the defendant has not shown that the prosecutor employed an arbitrary standard in selecting which cases are tried as capital cases, he has failed to prove that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in any way undermines the constitutionality of our death penalty statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2000. This assignment is without merit.
III.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the charge of first degree burglary at the home of Cynthia Milton. At the close of the State’s evidence, defendant moved to dismiss on the above charge. The trial court denied the motion. Defense counsel renewed the motion at the end of all the evidence, and the trial court again denied the motion. Although the defendant’s counsel on appeal excepts only to the denial of the motion made at the close of the State’s evidence, instead of on the denial of the motion made at the close of all the evidence as mandated by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15-173, we shall nevertheless review the merits of this assignment of error. State v. Leonard, 300 N.C. 223, 266 S.E. 2d 631 (1980).
First degree burglary is the breaking and entering during the nighttime of an occupied dwelling with the intent to commit a felony therein. State v. Simpson, 299 N.C. 377, 261 S.E. 2d 661 (1980). The defendant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support the element of a breaking, either actual or constructive. The defendant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to the remaining elements of first degree burglary. A breaking, as it pertains to the crime of burglary, “constitutes any act of force, however slight, ‘employed to effect an entrance through any usual or unusual place of ingress, whether open, partly open, or closed.’ ” State v. Jolly, 297 N.C. 121, 127-128, 254 S.E. 2d 1, 5-6 (1979); see State v. Myrick, 306 N.C. 110, 291 S.E. 2d 577 (1982).
The evidence reveals that Cindy Milton walked to her back door in response to a knock on the window. There was no evidence that the victim invited the defendant inside. The witnesses testified that they heard a bang and saw Cindy running into the house, screaming. The glass pane in the back door was broken. The defendant followed Cindy into the house, cornered her in the laundry room, and shot her. There was substantial evidence from [14]*14which the jury could infer that defendant entered the house with force and without consent.
When given the benefit of the reasonable inferences drawn from this evidence, we believe the State presented sufficient evidence of a breaking, as well as the other elements of first degree burglary. Thus, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of first degree burglary was properly denied.
IV.
In his next assignment of error, defendant argues that the district attorney during closing arguments improperly and prejudicially read to the jury the law concerning “amnesia” found in State v. Caddell, 287 N.C. 266, 215 S.E. 2d 348 (1975). Defendant claims that this reading denigrated and downplayed his defense of insanity, by convincing the jury to totally disregard the evidence in support of his defense of not guilty by reason of insanity. We find this assignment of error meritless.
During closing argument in the guilt-innocence stage, the prosecutor read the following to the jury:
Amnesia is rare. More frequently the accused, remembering full well what he’s done, alleges amnesia in false defense. He is a malingerer . . . Failure to remember later, when accused, is in itself no proof of the mental condition when the crime was performed.
The precise language on amnesia in Caddell appears as follows:
“Amnesia, loss of memory, may lead to crimes entirely unknown to the culprit at a later date. That is rare. More frequently, the accused, remembering full well what he has done, alleges amnesia in false defense. He is a malingerer. To prove his innocence or guilt may be most difficult . . . Failure to remember later, when accused, is in itself no proof of the mental condition when crime was performed.”
Id. at 286, 215 S.E. 2d at 361.
The defendant did not object to the remarks of which he now complains. Ordinarily, defense counsel must object to the prosecuting attorney’s jury argument prior to the verdict in order to avoid waiving the alleged error for appellate review. State v. [15]*15Brock, 305 N.C. 532, 290 S.E. 2d 566 (1982). In Brock, however, we noted that:
An exception to this rule is found in capital cases where, because of the severity of the death sentence, this court will review alleged improprieties in the prosecutor’s jury argument despite defendant’s failure to timely object. State v. Johnson, 298 N.C. 355, 259 S.E. 2d 752 (1979). However, even in death cases the impropriety must be extreme for this court to find that the trial judge abused his discretion in not recognizing and correcting ex mero mo tu an argument that defense counsel failed to find prejudicial when he heard it.
Id. at 537, 290 S.E. 2d at 570.
In the case sub judice the evidence revealed that the defendant claimed amnesia about the shootings. Yet, according to the testimony of certain law enforcement officers, shortly after the killings the defendant made comments which indicated that he was well aware of his criminal actions. The examining psychiatrist was unable to form an opinion as to Noland’s ability to know the difference between right and wrong due to the claimed amnesia; nor was the doctor, able to determine whether the amnesia was in all actuality real.
The crux of the defendant’s complaint is that because his defense to the murder charges was insanity, the reading of the quoted material was irrelevant to the issues before the jury. We disagree. The defendant introduced evidence at trial concerning his alleged “amnesia.” By so doing, the issue of amnesia became relevant, particularly in terms of its possible fabrication and its effect on the underlying insanity defense. Defendant concedes that the well established law in North Carolina allows counsel the right to argue to the jury the law and the facts in evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. State v. Pinch, 306 N.C. 1, 292 S.E. 2d 203, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1056 (1982), reh. denied, 459 U.S. 1189 (1983).
We believe the State was well within the bounds of proper argument in reading the law on amnesia to the jury since the issue was relevant and fairly presented by the evidence. Furthermore, the prosecutor’s “misquoting” of Caddell did not constitute [16]*16an impropriety so extreme as to require the trial judge to act ex mero motu. The assignment of error is overruled.
V.
The trial judge, in his instructions to the jury during the guilt-innocence phase, informed the jury that it might possibly serve as the triers of fact in the sentencing phase. The judge instructed as follows:
Now, Members of the jury, in the event that the defendant in this case is convicted of murder in the first degree, I instruct you that the Court will conduct a sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. This proceeding may be conducted before you or another jury. It will be conducted, if necessary, as soon as practical after any verdict of guilty of first degree murder is returned. (Emphasis added.)
Defendant asserts that this “instruction constituted an improper expression of opinion by the [c]ourt on the evidence,” since the trial judge, in essence, told the jury that the evidence presented warranted verdicts of guilty. Although the defendant now maintains that this instruction violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-180 (repealed in 1977 and replaced by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1232), and caused irreparable prejudice, he failed to object at trial. In fact, the record seems to indicate that the instruction was requested by the defendant since, according to N.C.P.I. — Crim. 206.10 (Replacement May 1980), the court shall give this instruction upon request by a party. The transcript discloses the following subsequent to the reading of the instruction in question:
The COURT: Mr. Mercer, is that the instruction now that you wanted?
Mr. Mercer: Yes, sir.
The COURT: All right.
Furthermore, following the above portion of the jury instructions, the trial judge also informed the jurors that:
If that time comes, you will receive separate sentencing instructions. However, at this time, your only concern is to determine whether the guilty [sic] of the defendant — whether [17]*17the defendant is guilty of the crimes charged; or, any lesser included offenses, about which you were instructed.
The instruction, quoted almost verbatim from the Pattern Jury Instruction on first degree murder, N.C.P.I. — Crim. 206.10 (Replacement May 1980), simply explains to the jury that their duty at this stage is to determine only the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and not the punishment. We do not believe that the instruction suggested to the jury that a finding of guilty of first degree murder was appropriate nor do we find that it intimates to the jury that the trial judge believed the defendant was guilty. The trial judge was merely explaining the legal process to the jurors, as it pertained to their duty. Accordingly, we reject defendant’s contention and hold that the instruction was properly given.
Sentencing Phase
VI.
In his next assignment of error, defendant contends that the district attorney in his argument to the jury improperly elevated the statutory aggravating factor N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2000(e)(ll). This aggravating circumstance provides that:
(11) The murder for which the defendant stands convicted was part of a course of conduct in which the defendant engaged and which included the commission by the defendant of other crimes of violence against another person or persons.
The district attorney argued in detail to the jury the legal importance of the mitigating factors and the single submitted statutory aggravating factor. The portion of his argument in question is as follows:
The second question, “Does the aggravating factor warrant the death penalty”?
As I’ve told you, under the statutory scheme, it’s not necessary for the State to have more than one aggravating factor in order to be able to request the jury to return a verdict of the death penalty. The presence of any one or more of those aggravating factors, if in your mind, if you decide it is [18]*18serious enough to warrant the imposition of the death penalty, is sufficient for you to find that.
I would argue to you that this aggravating factor is perhaps the most serious of any of them. And, I would argue to you that the fact that this man killed two people and tried to kill another, seriously wounding her, is sufficiently serious to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. I don’t know of any other case — I can’t imagine any other case that can be more serious. And, I would argue to you that the answer to that question is, “Yes.”
Defendant argues that the district attorney improperly injected his personal beliefs concerning the applicable law, by asserting his opinion that greater weight should be given to this factor in aggravation. Defendant lodged no objection during this portion of the prosecutor’s argument. Because we do not believe that these remarks constituted error, the trial judge correctly refrained from taking curative action ex mero motu.
Prosecutors may not misstate the law or inject personal opinion concerning a legal principle. State v. Maynard, 311 N.C. 1, 316 S.E. 2d 197. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2000 does not apportion or assign any particular weight to be afforded the listed mitigating and aggravating factors for the sentencer’s consideration. The law assigns no particular value or weight to any of the factors for the jury’s consideration. State v. McDougall, 308 N.C. 1, 301 S.E. 2d 308, cert. denied, — U.S. —, 78 L.Ed. 2d 173 (1983).
Although the capital sentencing statute does not assign the relative value to be given to each circumstance, certainly attorneys should be allowed to discuss the merits of each of the factors presented and their seriousness or lack thereof. State v. Kirkley, 308 N.C. 196, 302 S.E. 2d 144 (1983) (jury argument regarding weight to be given mitigating factors); see State v. Craig, 308 N.C. 446, 302 S.E. 2d 740, cert. denied, — U.S. —, 78 L.Ed. 2d 247 (1983). Here, defense counsel in his jury argument emphasized to the jury that out of eleven statutory aggravating factors the evidence supported only one. He further attempted, as the law permits him, to diminish the seriousness of that one aggravating factor. The district attorney responded to what he called the defense counsel’s indication that “the State intended] to rely on ... a technical [aggravating factor],” and attempted to [19]*19bolster the aggravating factor. We perceive the prosecutor’s statement, “I would argue to you,” not as an injection of personal opinion but as a contention to be considered by the jury. We hold that the district attorney’s statement that “this aggravating factor is perhaps the most serious of any of them” was not improper, particularly when viewed in light of defense counsel’s earlier argument.
VII.
The defendant combines two assignments of error, first contending that the district attorney improperly indicated to the jury that it could determine the existence of the mitigating factor, the lack of any prior criminal activity, and second that the trial judge erred in his instructions concerning that mitigating factor. Defendant did not object at trial to the prosecutor’s remark or to the trial judge’s instructions.
Subsequent to reminding the jury that the evidence indicated the defendant pled guilty to communicating threats, the district attorney stated to the jury, “you make your decision about whether you think his lack of any prior criminal history is a mitigating factor.” Contrary to defendant’s assertions, we do not believe this statement constitutes error. “[T]he weight a mitigating circumstance is assigned is entirely for the jury to decide. It follows that counsel is entitled to argue what weight circumstances should ultimately be assigned.” State v. Craig, 308 N.C. 446, 460, 302 S.E. 2d 740, 749. Here, the prosecutor’s remark clearly goes to the weight the jury should attach to this mitigating factor.
Additionally, the defendant argues that the trial judge should have given a peremptory instruction to the jury that the defendant had no significant history of prior criminal activity. Instead, the trial court simply instructed that:
Mitigating Circumstance No. 1, first you should consider whether or not the defendant, John Thomas Noland, had a significant history of prior criminal activity. The mitigating circumstance listed is that,
“The defendant had no significant history of prior criminal activity.”
[20]*20You can consider this.
Significant means important or notable. Whether any history of prior criminal activities is sufficient is for you to determine from all the facts and circumstances that you find from the evidence. However, you should not determine whether it is significant only on the basis of the number of convictions, if any, in the defendant’s record. Rather, you should consider the nature and quality of the defendant’s history, if any, in determining whether it is significant.
You would find this mitigating circumstance if you find that any criminal activity presented to you during the course of this trial is not significant and that this is not a significant history of prior criminal activity that the defendant — of the defendant’s prior criminal history.
Now Members of the jury, in this regard, Susan Milton offered evidence for the State, during the course of the trial and by way of cross-examination, testified that John Thomas Noland, Jr., had not been in any trouble with the law while they were married. He did plead guilty to communicating threats to her family in 1981 and paid the Court costs. Communicating threats is a violation of G.S. 14-277.1; and, it is a misedmeanor [sic].
In addition to that, John Thomas Noland’s mother, Nanny Noland, testified that her son had never been in any trouble prior to these incidents.
Where all the evidence in a case, if believed, tends to show that a particular mitigating factor exists, a peremptory instruction is proper. State v. Johnson, 298 N.C. 47, 257 S.E. 2d 597 (1979). However, a peremptory instruction is inappropriate when the evidence surrounding that issue is conflicting. State v. Smith, 305 N.C. 691, 292 S.E. 2d 264, cert. denied, --- U.S. ---, 74 L.Ed. 2d 622 (1982).
The mitigating circumstance with which we are concerned, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2000(f)(l), does not speak in terms of “criminal convictions,” but rather in terms of “criminal activity.” Thus this subsection does not necessarily restrict the jury’s consideration to only prior convictions. See State v. Stokes, 308 N.C. [21]*21634, 304 S.E. 2d 184 (1983). The evidence reveals, as the trial court noted, that the defendant communicated threats and was convicted of that charge. The defendant’s former wife testified that on several other occasions defendant communicated threats and at least once committed an assault on a female. Clearly this constituted some evidence of criminal activity. Whether this evidence was sufficient to constitute significant history of criminal activity, thereby precluding a finding of this factor, was for the jury to decide. The assignment of error is overruled.
VIII.
Defendant’s next contention is that the prosecutor improperly and prejudicially argued that the imposition of a sentence of death would be a deterrent to future dangerous activity by the defendant. The prosecutor argued:
You all are going to have to make a decision. We’re trying to run a society. I think we all some times take our society for granted. We see the televisions and computers and the cars and all the wonderful things we have, and I think we tend to forget that society is a gunshot away, or the lack of society is a gunshot away and maybe three meals away.
And I think we build a society every day in what we all do. And, if all the people in this room were starting out to build a society, tomorrow, and, we all depended on each other for the conduct of our society and our survival as a civilization, and, John Noland was among us, having killed his father-in-law and having killed his sister-in-law, two entirely innocent people. And we were trying to decide the rules or how we were going to conduct our society, and whether we were going to be safe in our beds, I think the decision would be the death penalty.
Defendant failed to object at trial to this alleged improper argument. We do not, in any way, find these particular remarks improper, and they certainly do not amount to such gross impropriety as to require the trial judge to act ex mero motu. See State v. Boyd, 311 N.C. 408, — S.E. 2d — (8/28/84). This assignment of error is without merit.
[22]*22IX.
[9]Defendant’s next contention is that the trial court’s framing of the sentencing issues unconstitutionally precluded the jury from considering the mitigating circumstances at each appropriate issue stage of the sentencing determination process. Defendant did not object at trial to these issues. The issues in the case sub judice are substantially the same as those repeatedly approved by this Court. See e.g. State v. Oliver and Moore, 309 N.C. 326, 307 S.E. 2d 304 (1983). The issues are constitutionally valid and free of prejudicial error. The assignment of error is overruled.
X.
[10]Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury during the sentencing phase by placing on the defendant the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence as to the existence of mitigating circumstances. Defendant did not object at trial. Furthermore, this Court has repeatedly ruled that the burden of persuasion as to the existence of mitigating circumstances is on the defendant. See State v. Maynard, 311 N.C. 1, 316 S.E. 2d 197. We overrule this assignment of error.
XI.
[11]In his next assignment of error the defendant argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error in its jury instructions concerning the mitigating circumstance set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2000(f)(2) that “the capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance,” because the trial court did not peremptorily charge the jury that this circumstance existed. Defendant made no request at trial for such an instruction.
As discussed earlier in this opinion, a peremptory instruction is proper only when all the evidence, if believed, tends to show that a particular mitigating factor exists. We disagree with the defendant’s contention that all the evidence in this case tended to show that he was under the influence of a mental or emotional disturbance. The evidence was conflicting.
Evidence of defendant’s emotional state subsequent to his separation from his wife was adequately presented through the
[23]*23testimony of witnesses for the defendant. The anguish and despair a marital separation may cause is not disputed. Furthermore the impact of such an event may vary according to the person. It appears from the medical testimony that the effect of marital separation would be more profound on a person diagnosed as suffering from a borderline personality disorder with narcissistic features. Defendant’s evidence also revealed that he was involuntarily committed in May 1981, treated for his problems, and thereafter released.
The State offered evidence which tended to contradict the defendant’s contention that he was under a mental disturbance during the occurrence of the criminal acts. The defendant bought the pistol, determined to be the murder weapon, from an acquaintance two days prior to the shootings. He assured the person from whom he purchased the gun that he did not plan to shoot anyone. The acquaintance’s testimony disclosed no evidence of defendant’s being in an emotional state at that time.
Additional evidence presented by the State tended to show that the defendant killed and wounded his victims in the exact order and manner in which he threatened. Nothing in the testimony of the witnesses to the killing suggested that the defendant appeared to be acting under a mental disturbance. The emotion that he displayed was anger. The defendant was confronted by law enforcement officers within an hour of the shootings. The officers noticed nothing peculiar about his eyes, his speech, or his walk. He commented that he knew he had killed two people. Nothing in his actions led the officers to believe that he was not in control of his faculties.
The State argues that its evidence “showed the defendant going through a detailed series of steps. . . . The events before, during, and after the killing suggested deliberation, not the frenzied behavior of an emotionally disturbed person.” In light of all the evidence presented, a peremptory instruction would have been improper in this instance. Defendant’s mental state was appropriately considered and determined by the jury.
XII.
Defendant next argues that the trial court erred by not requiring the jury to list each mitigating factor it found on the issue [24]*24sheet. We addressed this same issue in State v. Pinch, 306 N.C. 1, 292 S.E. 2d 203 and State v. Rook, 304 N.C. 201, 283 S.E. 2d 732 (1981), and found no merit in this contention. We reiterate that although we find no such requirement in our statutes, the better practice is to require the jury to specify mitigating factors found and not found to facilitate appellate review. This assignment of error is overruled.
XIII.
In his final assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it was required to reach a unanimous decision in its determination of mitigating factors. Defendant maintains that required unanimity unconstitutionally restricts the jury from a full opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances. Defendant failed to object at trial. We have ruled on this precise question adversely to the defendant’s position. In State v. Kirkley, 308 N.C. 196, 302 S.E. 2d 144, we found this jury unanimity instruction to be constitutional and in accord with the requirements of Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 57 L.Ed. 2d 973 (1978) and Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 71 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1982). We reaffirm our holding in Kirkley and, thus, overrule defendant’s assignment of error on this issue.
Proportionality
After a thorough review of the transcript, record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we find that the record fully supports the jury’s written finding in aggravation. We further find that defendant’s death sentence was not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor and that the transcript and record are devoid of any indication that such impermissible influences were a factor in sentencing.
Finally we have determined that the death sentence imposed is neither excessive nor disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases considering both the crime and the defendant. See State v. Williams, 308 N.C. 47, 301 S.E. 2d 335.
We recently upheld the death penalty in State v. Boyd, 311 N.C. 408, — S.E. 2d — (8/28/84), a case not dissimilar from the case sub judice in that the murder evolved from the separation of the defendant from a woman he purportedly loved; the defendant [25]*25was apparently unable to cope with the separation; prior to the murder, the defendant threatened to kill the victim; and the murder was carefully planned and executed and committed overtly. See State v. Martin, 303 N.C. 246, 278 S.E. 2d 214, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 933, reh. denied, 454 U.S. 1117 (1981).
In addition, we have affirmed the death penalty in numerous cases involving death or serious injury to one or more people other than the murder victim. See State v. McDougall, 308 N.C. 1, 301 S.E. 2d 308; State v. Pinch, 306 N.C. 1, 292 S.E. 2d 203; State v. Hutchins, 303 N.C. 321, 279 S.E. 2d 788 (1981); State v. Barfield, 298 N.C. 306, 259 S.E. 2d 510 (1979), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 907, reh. denied, 448 U.S. 918 (1980). State v. McDowell, 301 N.C. 279, 271 S.E. 2d 286 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1025, reh. denied, 451 U.S. 1012 (1981); see also, State v. Gardner, 311 N.C. 489, — S.E. 2d — (8/28/84). Considering the circumstances surrounding the crimes in this case, together with those in similar cases, we hold that the penalty of death is neither excessive nor disproportionate.
No error.