Cases | State v. Frost, 727 So. 2d 417 (La. Ct. App. 1998) | 2018
The defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, the defendant claimed that victim impact evidence introduced during the penalty phase of trial was beyond the scope of the court’s decision in State v. Bernard, 608 So. 2d 966 (La. 1992) and therefore required reversal of sentence. Specifically, the defendant claimed that; (1) the clear language of La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 905.2 prohibited testimony of neighbors; and (2) the quality of the victim impact testimony exceeded the scope of relevant victim impact evidence. The appellate court held that: (1) legislative history and the plain language of the article supported the defendant’s assertion that article 905.2 contemplates admission of victim impact testimony by family members only. However, introduction of the testimony was harmless because the witnesses did not offer opinions about the heinous nature of the crime or of the murderer and their testimony did not evolve into detailed descriptions or particularized narrations of the victims’ good qualities or the witness’ own suffering; and (2) testimony was within the scope of Bernard. Testimony regarding the victim’s intelligence was intended to show her uniqueness as an individual. Introduction of testimony regarding the victim’s pets did not violate the trial court’s ruling because no testimony was elicited regarding their grief and euthanization, and the brief amount of testimony that characterized the victim as a pet owner spoke to her uniqueness as an individual. Finally, statements that the witnesses had no sympathy for the defendant did not affect the jury’s verdict, as it was unremarkable that the victim’s family lacked sympathy for the defendant.
superseded by statute as stated in State v. Gomez, 778 So. 2d 549, 553 (La. 2001), La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 905.2(A) (finding that the legislature's recent amendment of La.C.Cr.P. art. 905.2(A) unquestionably superceded decisions in State v. Frost, 727 So. 2d 417 (La. Ct. App. 1998) and State v. Wessinger, 736 So. 2d 162 (La. 1999) with regard persons entitled to provide testimony regarding the impact of the victim’s death on their lives)