State v. Jacobs

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Jacobs

880 So. 2d 1, 2004 La. LEXIS 1964, 2004 WL 1418020

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 25, 2004

DocketNo. 2003-KK-3349

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 880 So. 2d 1 (State v. Jacobs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Jacobs, 880 So. 2d 1, 2004 La. LEXIS 1964, 2004 WL 1418020 (La. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

|,PER CURIAM.

Granted in part; denied in part. In the event that retrial of this case reaches a penalty phase at which Ghebrab and Ase-ghedec Ghebrziharb may testify with regard to prior crimes committed against them by the defendant, the state is directed not to question either witness about the emotional impact those crimes may have had on their lives. Such testimony is not sanctioned by La.C.Cr.P. art. 905.2(A) because it does not “inform[ ] the sentencing authority about the specific harm caused by the crime in question ... necessary to determine the proper punishment for a first degree murder,” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 825, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 2608, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991), and does not relate to the defendant’s character and propensities, as otherwise revealed by his actions in committing those crimes for which he has been convicted. See People v. Dunlap, 975 P.2d 723, 745 (Colo.)(“Evidence regarding the impact of a capital defendant’s prior crimes on the victims of those crimes ... is not admissible because it is not relevant to the actual harm caused by the defendant as a result | gof the homicide for which he is being sentenced.”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 893, 120 S.Ct. 221, 145 L.Ed.2d 186 (1999).

In all other respects, the application is denied. Subject always to the trial court’s discretion in regulating the presentation of evidence, witnesses at a capital penalty phase may present their testimony augmented by prepared statements or literary creations such as poems to express the pain of their loss without depriving a defendant of a fundamentally fair sentencing hearing. See, e.g., Noel v. State, 331 Ark. 79, 960 S.W.2d 439, 446-47 (1998)(“Finally, [the witness] read a poem to the jury titled ‘Wishes from the Heart,’ that she had written about her [dead] children and that she ‘used as a tool to suppress the hurt and pain because sometimes it is so overwhelming....’ The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this testimony.”).

KNOLL, J., recused. TRAYLOR, J., would deny the writ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

|,PER CURIAM.

Granted in part; denied in part. In the event that retrial of this case reaches a penalty phase at which Ghebrab and Ase-ghedec Ghebrziharb may testify with regard to prior crimes committed against them by the defendant, the state is directed not to question either witness about the emotional impact those crimes may have had on their lives. Such testimony is not sanctioned by La.C.Cr.P. art. 905.2(A) because it does not “inform[ ] the sentencing authority about the specific harm caused by the crime in question ... necessary to determine the proper punishment for a first degree murder,” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 825, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 2608, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991), and does not relate to the defendant’s character and propensities, as otherwise revealed by his actions in committing those crimes for which he has been convicted. See People v. Dunlap, 975 P.2d 723, 745 (Colo.)(“Evidence regarding the impact of a capital defendant’s prior crimes on the victims of those crimes ... is not admissible because it is not relevant to the actual harm caused by the defendant as a result | gof the homicide for which he is being sentenced.”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 893, 120 S.Ct. 221, 145 L.Ed.2d 186 (1999).

In all other respects, the application is denied. Subject always to the trial court’s discretion in regulating the presentation of evidence, witnesses at a capital penalty phase may present their testimony augmented by prepared statements or literary creations such as poems to express the pain of their loss without depriving a defendant of a fundamentally fair sentencing hearing. See, e.g., Noel v. State, 331 Ark. 79, 960 S.W.2d 439, 446-47 (1998)(“Finally, [the witness] read a poem to the jury titled ‘Wishes from the Heart,’ that she had written about her [dead] children and that she ‘used as a tool to suppress the hurt and pain because sometimes it is so overwhelming....’ The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this testimony.”).

KNOLL, J., recused. TRAYLOR, J., would deny the writ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

880 So. 2d 1, 2004 La. LEXIS 1964, 2004 WL 1418020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jacobs-la-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack