Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bernard, 608 So. 2d 966.

39 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Darren Bridges La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
4/11/00), (-68 (La.1992)).
State of Louisiana v. Victor D. Guillory A/K/A Victory Guillory La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State v. Allen 247 So. 3d 179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
11/12/92), , 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 sente
State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Clark 220 So. 3d 583 La. 2016
With respect to the penalty phase, (La.
State of Louisiana v. Robert Leroy McCoy 218 So. 3d 535 La. 2016
Victim Impact Testimony In the defendant’s thirteenth assignment of error, he contends that the State exceeded the scope of appropriate victim-impact evidence, (La.
State v. Magee 103 So. 3d 285 La. 2012
(“Evidence of the victim’s survivors’ opinions about the crime and the murderer is clearly irrelevant to any issues in a capital sentencing hearing.”).
State v. Odenbaugh 82 So. 3d 215 La. 2011
While limited, victim-impact testimony, defines 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 to show the character and propensities of the defendan
State v. Traczyk 72 So. 3d 848 La. 2011
14:30, the state has filed notice, and La.C.Cr.P.
State v. McElveen 73 So. 3d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
art. 905.2, 24 and State v. Gomez, 00-0566 (La.1/17/01), , the defendant argues that “victim impact statement” is a term used to describe evidence of the character of a homicide victim and the effect of the death on his or her family, and such evidence is relevant and admissible only at the penalty phase of
State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
Notwithstanding, we cautioned: In order to provide general guidance to trial courts in capital sentencing hearings, we reiterate that some evidence of the murder victim's character and of the impact of the murder on the victim's survivors is admissible as relevant to the circumstances of the offense or to the character and
State v. Anderson 996 So. 2d 973 La. 2008
State v. Manning 885 So. 2d 1044 La. 2004
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...."); ("Evidence of the victim's survivors' opinions about the crime and the murderer is clearly irrelevant to any issues in a capital sentencing hearing.").
State v. Jacobs 855 So. 2d 324 La. 2003
(1992) when it ruled on the merits of defense motions nos. 86, 87, 88 on January 27, 2003.
State v. Gardner 844 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
for the principle that the State must give adequate pre-trial notice of victim-impact evidence.
State v. Taylor 838 So. 2d 729 La. 2003
-968 (La.1992) defines victim impact testimony 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, and not evidence of the survivors' opinions of the crime and of the murderer.
State v. Bowie 813 So. 2d 377 La. 2002
when it set out the parameters for admitting victim impact evidence in Louisiana and noted: Victim worth evidence, being a two-edged sword, is particularly dangerous.
State v. Irish 807 So. 2d 208 La. 2002
this Court stated that: [S]ome evidence of the murder victim's character and of the impact of the murder on the victim's survivors is admissible as relevant to the circumstances *215 of the offense or the character and propensities of the offender.
State v. Higgins 802 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Gomez 778 So. 2d 549 La. 2001
coupled with the amendment to La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Miller 776 So. 2d 396 La. 2000
Victim Impact Evidence Defendant contends that he was improperly denied a and that the prosecutor introduced inadmissible victim impact evidence at the penalty phase of the trial.
State v. Tilley 767 So. 2d 6 La. 2000
we defined the scope of allowable evidence under La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Hoffman 768 So. 2d 542 La. 2000
defines victim-impact testimony 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, and evidence of the survivors' opinions of the crime and of the murderer.
State v. Lambert 749 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Wessinger 736 So. 2d 162 La. 1999
State v. Ratcliff 731 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
NOTES [1] which discusses the admissibility of victim impact testimony pursuant to LSA-C.Cr.P.
State v. Frost 727 So. 2d 417 La. 1998
Errors Alleged During the Penalty Phase Victim Impact Testimony In assignments of error 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, and 106, and therefore requires reversal of his sentence.
State v. Brumfield 737 So. 2d 660 La. 1998
2597 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991)
State v. Cooks 720 So. 2d 637 La. 1998
In support of this assertion, defendant cites Lockett v. Ohio, supra , and argues these decisions either allow the introduction of the evidence in question or could be extended to allow its admission.
State v. Williams 708 So. 2d 703 La. 1998
State v. Gradley 745 So. 2d 1160 La. 1998
State v. Koon 704 So. 2d 756 La. 1997
State v. Seals 684 So. 2d 368 La. 1996
in our most detailed treatment of the subject we held: Some evidence of the murder victim's character and of the impact of the murder on the victim's survivors is admissible as relevant to the circumstances of the offense or to the character and propensities of the offender.
State v. Tart 672 So. 2d 116 La. 1996
State v. Bannister 670 So. 2d 1223 La. 1996
State v. Taylor 669 So. 2d 364 La. 1996
[5] Specifically, the defendant complains that: (1) the trial court erred by allowing Ponsano's survivors to give their opinions about the crime, the defendant and the appropriate sentence; (2) [6] (3) the trial court erred by admitting victim impact evidence regarding Clark; (4) his due process rights were violated because he did not receive adequate notice of the state's intent to use victim impact evidence regarding Clark; and (5) the prosecutor made improper arguments and comments on the vic
Explained State v. Scales 655 So. 2d 1326 La. 1995
2597 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991) (finding no Eighth Amendment bar to victim impact testimony), (delineating the scope of the admissibility of victim impact testimony in Louisiana).
State v. Martin 645 So. 2d 190 La. 1994
2597, 2606 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991)
State v. Jones 639 So. 2d 1144 La. 1994
State v. Jackson 608 So. 2d 949 La. 1992
NOTES [1] The admissibility of victim impact evidence, also a major issue in this case, also decided this day.