Cases | Johnson v. State, 27 S.W.3d 405 (Ark. 2000) | 2018
The defendant was convicted of capital murder. The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the defendant’s conviction. A retrial was held, and the defendant was again convicted of capital murder. He appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of victim-impact evidence. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed, noting that the defendant’s victim-impact arguments were either barred or without merit. Specifically, the Court noted that the defendant’s arguments on appeal with respect to the introduction of testimony during the sentencing phase of the trial regarding the victim’s religious activities exceeded the scope and nature of his objections to the same testimony at trial. The Court noted further that the defendant failed to object at trial to the reading of a statement by the victim’s young child by another witness during the penalty phase of the trial. Finally, the Court concluded that even though the General Assembly expanded the scope of permissible evidence during the penalty phase to include victim-impact evidence, the General Assembly did not expand the scope of punishment or add a new aggravating circumstance. Thus, permitting the victim-impact testimony in this case did not constitute an ex post facto law.