Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
43 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sawyergreen2 sentences2016Beginning with our decision in State v. Sawyer, 422 So.2d 95, 104 (La.1982), this court held that Article 905.2 authorizes the introduction of evidence of convictions for unrelated crimes at a capital sentencing hearing, even if the defendant does not place' his character at issue. 2016Beginning with our decision in State v. Sawyer, 422 So. 2d 95, 104 (La.1982), this court held that Article 905.2 authorizes the introduction of evidence of convictions for unrelated crimes at a capital sentencing hearing, even if the defendant does not place his character at issue. | 5 | 5 |
State v. Bernardgreen2 sentences2018State v. Bernard, 92-0997 (La. 11/12/92), 608 So.2d 966 , held that victim impact evidence, which it defined as evidence of the character of the victim, evidence of the emotional, physical, and economic impact of the crime on the family of the murdered victim, excluding evidence of the survivors' opinions of the crime and of the murderer, is admissible at the capital sentencing hearing to show the character and propensities of the defendant and the circumstances of the crime. 2012Testimony regarding their preferences or opinions as to the appropriate punishment could just as easily be deemed admissible under Manning as inadmissible under Payne and State v. Bernard, 608 So.2d 966, 970 (La.1992) (“Evidence of the victim’s survivors’ opinions about the crime and the murderer is clearly irrelevant to any issues in a capital sentencing hearing.”). | 2 | 5 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences1980See also, Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 (1967) ("[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."). 1980See also, Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 (1967) ("[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2016This court explained that “adequate notice, sufficiently detailed to allow the defendant to know the exact unrelated conduct he must be prepared to meet in the sentencing hearing and sufficiently in advance of trial to allow reasonable preparation of a defense, is essential to provide meaning to the defendant’s corresponding due process right of a reasonable opportunity to be heard at the capital sentencing hearing.” Id. 2016This court explained that “adequate notice, sufficiently detailed to allow the defendant to know the exact unrelated conduct he must be prepared to meet in the sentencing hearing and sufficiently in advance of trial to allow reasonable preparation of a defense, is essential to provide meaning to the defendant’s corresponding due process right of a reasonable opportunity to be heard at the capital sentencing hearing.” Id. | 1 | 8 |
State v. Comeauxgreen2 sentences2016In retreating from the Bourque holding, State v. Comeaux recognized that “[p]erhaps an overabundant amount of evidence of significant unadjudicated criminal conduct . . . could reach a point where the jury’s attention is improperly shifted, this court concluded that “whether otherwise admissible evidence of unrelated and unadjudicated criminal conduct (the admissibility of which has already been subjected by this court to significant limitations) injects an arbitrary factor into a capital sentencing hearing is one to be decided on a case-by- case basis.” State v. Comeaux, 93-2729 at pp. 10-11, 2016In retreating from the Bourque holding, State v. Comeaux recognized that “[p]er-haps an overabundant amount of evidence of significant unadjudicated criminal conduct ... could reach a point where the jury’s attention is improperly shifted, this court concluded that “whether otherwise admissible evidence of unrelated and unad-judicated eriminal conduct (the admissibility of which has already been subjected by this court to significant limitations) injects an arbitrary factor into a capital sentencing hearing is one to be decided on-a case-by-case basis.” State v. Comeaux, 93-2729 at pp. 10-11, | 1 | 4 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2014“While a juror has the discretion to assign whatever weight the juror deems appropriate to any aggravating and mitigating circumstance established by the evidence, the juror must be willing to consider mitigating evidence relevant to the character and propensities of the defendant (which is the focus of a capital sentencing hearing) and must be willing to fairly consider a life sentence.” Miller , 99-0192 at 8-9, 776 So.2d at 402-03 . 2014“While a juror has the discretion to assign whatever weight the juror deems appropriate to any aggravating and mitigating circumstance established by the evidence, the juror must be willing to consider mitigating evidence relevant to the character and propensities of the defendant (which is the focus of a capital sentencing hearing) and must be willing to fairly consider a life sentence.” Miller, 99-0192 at 8-9, 776 So.2d at 402-03 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Wardgreen2 sentences1999Finally, in State v. Ward, 483 So.2d 578, 588-89 (La.1986), a majority expanded the category of admissible evidence in the capital sentencing hearing to include evidence of other crimes with which the defendant had been charged but of which he had not been convicted. 1997In State v. Ward, 483 So.2d 578 (La.1986), this court addressed the issue of whether the prosecutor in the case-in-chief in the capital sentencing hearing may introduce evidence of the defendant's unrelated criminal conduct for which no conviction has been obtained. | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Abelgreen2 sentences1999Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159, 165 , 112 S.Ct. 1093 , 117 L.Ed.2d 309 (1992); see also United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 , 105 S.Ct. 465 , 83 L.Ed.2d 450 (1984). 1999Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159, 165 , 112 S.Ct. 1093 , 117 L.Ed.2d 309 (1992); see also United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 , 105 S.Ct. 465 , 83 L.Ed.2d 450 (1984). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bourquegreen2 sentences2016See also State v. Bourque, 96- 0842, pp. 13-14 (La. 7/1/97), 699 So. 2d 1, 10-11 , cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1073 , 118 86 S.Ct. 1514 , 140 L.Ed.2d 667 (1998) (wherein this court held that testimony, regarding an incident in which the defendant used extremely derogatory language toward the victim and her co-worker, was not offered as evidence of other crimes nor was it offered as an inculpatory statement; rather, the testimony went to the character and propensities of the defendant, an area clearly relevant and within the proper scope of a capital sentencing hearing under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 905.2). 2016See also State v. Bourque, 96-0842, pp. 13-14 (La. 7/1/97), 699 So.2d 1, 10-11 , cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1073 , 118 S.Ct. 1514 , 140 L.Ed.2d 667 (1998) (wherein this' court held that testimony, regarding an incident in which the defendant used extremely derogatory language toward the victim and her co-worker, was not offered as evidence of other crimes nor was it offered as an inculpatory statement; rather, the testimony went to the character and propensities of the defendant, an area clearly relevant and within the proper scope of a capital sentencing hearing under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 905.2). | 1 | 1 |
Zehner v. Smithgreen2 sentences2016See also State v. Bourque, 96- 0842, pp. 13-14 (La. 7/1/97), 699 So. 2d 1, 10-11 , cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1073 , 118 86 S.Ct. 1514 , 140 L.Ed.2d 667 (1998) (wherein this court held that testimony, regarding an incident in which the defendant used extremely derogatory language toward the victim and her co-worker, was not offered as evidence of other crimes nor was it offered as an inculpatory statement; rather, the testimony went to the character and propensities of the defendant, an area clearly relevant and within the proper scope of a capital sentencing hearing under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 905.2). 2016See also State v. Bourque, 96-0842, pp. 13-14 (La. 7/1/97), 699 So.2d 1, 10-11 , cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1073 , 118 S.Ct. 1514 , 140 L.Ed.2d 667 (1998) (wherein this' court held that testimony, regarding an incident in which the defendant used extremely derogatory language toward the victim and her co-worker, was not offered as evidence of other crimes nor was it offered as an inculpatory statement; rather, the testimony went to the character and propensities of the defendant, an area clearly relevant and within the proper scope of a capital sentencing hearing under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 905.2). | 1 | 1 |
Schmidt v. Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fundgreen2 sentences2016See also State v. Bourque, 96- 0842, pp. 13-14 (La. 7/1/97), 699 So. 2d 1, 10-11 , cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1073 , 118 86 S.Ct. 1514 , 140 L.Ed.2d 667 (1998) (wherein this court held that testimony, regarding an incident in which the defendant used extremely derogatory language toward the victim and her co-worker, was not offered as evidence of other crimes nor was it offered as an inculpatory statement; rather, the testimony went to the character and propensities of the defendant, an area clearly relevant and within the proper scope of a capital sentencing hearing under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 905.2). 2016See also State v. Bourque, 96-0842, pp. 13-14 (La. 7/1/97), 699 So.2d 1, 10-11 , cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1073 , 118 S.Ct. 1514 , 140 L.Ed.2d 667 (1998) (wherein this' court held that testimony, regarding an incident in which the defendant used extremely derogatory language toward the victim and her co-worker, was not offered as evidence of other crimes nor was it offered as an inculpatory statement; rather, the testimony went to the character and propensities of the defendant, an area clearly relevant and within the proper scope of a capital sentencing hearing under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 905.2). | 1 | 1 |
Texas Lottery Commission v. Wennergreen1 sentence2016See also State v. Bourque, 96-0842, pp. 13-14 (La. 7/1/97), 699 So.2d 1, 10-11 , cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1073 , 118 S.Ct. 1514 , 140 L.Ed.2d 667 (1998) (wherein this' court held that testimony, regarding an incident in which the defendant used extremely derogatory language toward the victim and her co-worker, was not offered as evidence of other crimes nor was it offered as an inculpatory statement; rather, the testimony went to the character and propensities of the defendant, an area clearly relevant and within the proper scope of a capital sentencing hearing under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 905.2). | 1 | 1 |
Payne v. Tennesseegreen2 sentences2004Id., 501 U.S. at 831 , 111 S.Ct. 2597, n2 (permissible victim-impact evidence does not include "the admission of a victim's family members' characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence...."); State v. Bernard, 608 So.2d 966, 970 (La.1992) ("Evidence of the victim's survivors' opinions about the crime and the murderer is clearly irrelevant to any issues in a capital sentencing hearing."). 2004Id., 501 U.S. at 831 , 111 S.Ct. 2597, n2 (permissible victim-impact evidence does not include "the admission of a victim's family members' characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence...."); State v. Bernard, 608 So.2d 966, 970 (La.1992) ("Evidence of the victim's survivors' opinions about the crime and the murderer is clearly irrelevant to any issues in a capital sentencing hearing."). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jordangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Williegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jonesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Heishmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dawson v. Delaware
green
2 sentences1992Rushing v. Butler, 868 F.2d 800 (5th Cir.1989). [11] In Dawson v. Delaware, ___, U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1093 , 117 L.Ed.2d 309 (1992), the Court held that evidence of the defendant's membership in a white racist prison gang (the Aryan Brotherhood) was not relevant character evidence in the capital sentencing hearing because evidence of racial bias was not tied in any way to the murder of the victim who, like the defendant, was white. 1992Rushing v. Butler, 868 F.2d 800 (5th Cir.1989). [11] In Dawson v. Delaware, ___, U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1093 , 117 L.Ed.2d 309 (1992), the Court held that evidence of the defendant's membership in a white racist prison gang (the Aryan Brotherhood) was not relevant character evidence in the capital sentencing hearing because evidence of racial bias was not tied in any way to the murder of the victim who, like the defendant, was white. | 3 | 1992–1999 |
State v. Jacobs
green
2 sentences2014GUIDRY, Justice, concurs and assigns reasons. hi write separately to emphasize that “[i]t is the trial judge who is ultimately responsible for making certain that all prospective jurors understand the fundamental elements of a capital trial and then-duties as jurors in a capital sentencing hearing.” State v. Jacobs, 99-1659 p. 12 (La.6/29/01), 789 So.2d 1280, 1288 . 2014I write separately to emphasize that “[i]t is the trial judge who is ultimately responsible for making certain that all prospective jurors understand the fundamental elements of a capital trial and their duties as jurors in a capital sentencing hearing.” State v. Jacobs, 99-1659 p. 12 (La. 6/29/01), 789 So.2d 1280, 1288 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Turner
green
2 sentences2010In State v. Turner, 05-2425 (La.7/10/06), 936 So.2d 89 , this Court upheld the constitutionality of La.C.Cr.P. art. 905.5.1 generally, and further upheld the statute's provision that a jury decide the question of mental retardation during a capital sentencing hearing. 2010In State v. Turner, 05-2425 (La.7/10/06), 936 So.2d 89 , this Court upheld the constitutionality of La.C.Cr.P. art. 905.5.1 generally, and further upheld the statute’s provision that a jury decide the question of mental retardation during a capital sentencing hearing. | 2 | 2008–2010 |
State v. Craig
green
2 sentences2007State v. Craig, 93-2515 (La.5/23/94), 637 So.2d 437 . 2002State v. Craig, 93-2515 (La.5/23/94), 637 So.2d 437 . | 2 | 2002–2007 |
State v. Brooks
green
2 sentences2007Id., 608 So.2d at 955 . 1997In State v. Brooks, 541 So.2d 801 (La. 1989), this court approved the introduction in the case-in-chief in the penalty phase of a capital sentencing hearing of two unrelated and unadjudicated murders, holding that evidence of unadjudicated crimes may be relevant and helpful to the jury in determining the appropriate sentence. | 2 | 1997–2007 |
Eddings v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2006Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982). 2006Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
California v. Ramos
green
2 sentences1994In other words, in my view the rule of Simmons broadens the due process protection afforded by the federal Constitution beyond that previously recognized in California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992 , 103 S.Ct. 3446 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983). [3] Thus, while I agree with the majority's observation that "[t]he possible prejudicial effect of the instruction perniciously undermines the reliability of the capital sentencing hearing and the soundness of the process by which a jury arrives at the recommendation of death," I would emphasize that the instruction *1157 violates the due process guarantee of a fu 1994In other words, in my view the rule of Simmons broadens the due process protection afforded by the federal Constitution beyond that previously recognized in California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992 , 103 S.Ct. 3446 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983). [3] Thus, while I agree with the majority's observation that "[t]he possible prejudicial effect of the instruction perniciously undermines the reliability of the capital sentencing hearing and the soundness of the process by which a jury arrives at the recommendation of death," I would emphasize that the instruction *1157 violates the due process guarantee of a fu | 2 | 1994–1997 |
State v. Bell
green
1 sentence2017The district court also granted the defense’s Motion to Determine Defendant’s I.Q. but declined to resolve the Atkins claim pre-trial, because the parties did not agree to leave this determination up to the court pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. 905.5.1, which states, "The jury shall try the issue of mental retardation of a capital defendant during the capital sentencing hearing unless the state and the defendant agree that the issue is to be tried by the judge.” Bell , 09-0199, p. 2, 53 So.3d at 439-40 . . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Cooks
green
1 sentence2011In State v. Cooks, 97-0999 (La.9/9/98), 720 So.2d 637 , the State introduced letters written by the defendant in “gang script” describing his violent threats against a cell mate from another gang and against innocent civilians outside the prison walls, including his former girlfriend. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Dunn
green
2 sentences2010State v. Dunn, 07-878, p. 6 (La.1/25/08), 974 So.2d 658, 662 . 2010State v. Dunn, 07-878, p. 6 (La.1/25/08), 974 So.2d 658, 662 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Wiggins v. Smith, Warden
green
2 sentences2009Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 , 125 S.Ct. 2456 , 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 , 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). 2009Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 , 125 S.Ct. 2456 , 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 , 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Rompilla v. Beard
red
2 sentences2009Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 , 125 S.Ct. 2456 , 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 , 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). 2009Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 , 125 S.Ct. 2456 , 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 , 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Tavakoli-Nouri v. Washington Hospital Center
green
2 sentences2008On the other hand, the type of evidence that tends to inject arbitrary factors into a capital sentencing hearing usually is evidence which is of only marginal relevance to the jury's determination of the character and propensities of the defendant." Id., 699 So.2d at 16 . 2008On the other hand, the type of evidence that tends to inject arbitrary factors into a capital sentencing hearing usually is evidence which is of only marginal relevance to the jury’s determination of the character and propensities of the defendant.” Id., 699 So.2d at 16 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Touchet
green
1 sentence2002In our opinion on original appeal, State v. Frank, 99-0553, pp. 9-10, (La.1/17/01), 803 So.2d 1, 10 , this Court directed the trial court to employ the criteria set forth in State v. Touehet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94), 642 So.2d 1213 , for determining whether relator is entitled to a new capital sentencing hearing and to state funds for purposes of hiring the requested mitigation experts to assist her defense at that hearing. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Old Chief v. United States
green
2 sentences2002However, the state's case must satisfy not only abstract logical consistency but also "jurors' expectation about what proper proof should be." Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 188 , 117 S.Ct. 644, 654 , 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997). 2002However, the state's case must satisfy not only abstract logical consistency but also "jurors' expectation about what proper proof should be." Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 188 , 117 S.Ct. 644, 654 , 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Frank
green
2 sentences2002In our opinion on original appeal, State v. Frank, 99-0553, pp. 9-10, (La.1/17/01), 803 So.2d 1, 10 , this Court directed the trial court to employ the criteria set forth in State v. Touehet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94), 642 So.2d 1213 , for determining whether relator is entitled to a new capital sentencing hearing and to state funds for purposes of hiring the requested mitigation experts to assist her defense at that hearing. 2002We specifically observed that “[i]f she is able to meet the standards provided in Touehet , the trial court is to vacate defendant’s sentence, order a new penalty hearing, and order that state funds be procured so that the defendant may hire the requested experts to assist her defense at the sentencing hearing.” Frank , 99-0553 at 10, 803 So.2d at 11 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Frost
green
2 sentences2001Subsequent to the 1994 amendment, we had occasion to consider the scope of the amendment in State v. Frost, 97-1771 (La.12/1/98), 727 So.2d 417 . 2001While we ultimately determined that the error was harmless, Frost held that "[a]lthough the [witnesses] were very close to the victim, they [did] not qualify as `family' under either a traditional or a legal definition of the word." Frost , 97-1771 at 14, 727 So.2d at 429 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Giordano v. MacDonald green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Michelson v. United States green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Comeaux green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| State v. Bourque green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Morse green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| State v. Jordan green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| State v. Copeland green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| State v. Lindsey green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Thompson v. Oklahoma green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State in Interest of Dino green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| In Re GAULT green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| David Daniel Rushing v. Robert H. Butler, Sr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| In Re WINSHIP green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Booth v. Maryland red | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Briddle v. State green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| People v. Whitehead green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Skipper v. State green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Terry Lee Goodwin v. Charles Balkcom, Warden green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. Wagner green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. Middleton green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Williams v. Commonwealth green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Furman v. Georgia green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Roberts v. Louisiana green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.