Ortiz v. State, 869 A.2d 285 (Del. 2005)

Cases | Ortiz v. State, 869 A.2d 285 (Del. 2005) | 2018

The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree, possession of a firearm during commission of a felony, and arson in the second degree. Prior to sentencing, the defense moved for a new penalty hearing in light of a letter from the victim’s daughter expressing opposition to the death penalty. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that direct opinion on punishment was inadmissible, and the defendant received a death sentence. On appeal, the defendant claimed that a victim should be allowed to speak in mitigation for the defense because Delaware law allows victims or their family members to express their feelings on the crime and its effect on them. The court held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion for a new penalty hearing. The record reflected that the victim presented mitigation testimony on cross-examination during the guilt phase of the trial. The trial judge properly concluded that the defendant was not entitled to a new penalty hearing for the purpose of presenting additional cumulative testimony from the victim’s family member, who had already presented mitigating evidence.