Cases | State v. Wessinger, 736 So. 2d 162 (La. 1999) | 2018
The defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and was sentenced to death for each count. On appeal, the defendant claimed that: (1) victim impact testimony of the victims’ friends and co-workers should not have been admitted; and (2) statements by the parents of one of the victims regarding their lack of sympathy for the defendant constituted error. The supreme court held that: (1) the testimony of the victims’ friends and co-workers was erroneously admitted because they were not the victims’ family members. However, the error was harmless. The witnesses gave only general descriptions of the victims' character and their own suffering at the loss of the victims. There were no detailed descriptions or particularized narratives of either the victims' good qualities or the witnesses' suffering. Further, the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the weight to be given victim impact testimony; and (2) admission of the “no sympathy” statements was harmless. The jury surely regarded the testimony as normal human reactions to the death of a loved one. That the victim's survivors might have little or no sympathy for the defendant would come as no surprise to a jury member.
superseded by statute as stated in State v. Gomez, 778 So. 2d 549, 553 (La. 2001), La.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 art. 905.2(A) (finding that the legislature's recent amendment of La.C.Cr.P. art. 905.2(A) unquestionably superceded decisions in State v. Frost, 727 So. 2d 417 (La.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)