Opinion ID: 1742511
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: An Alleged Flaw in the Capital Sentencing Scheme

Text: At the time of the defendant's trial, La.C.Cr.P. art. 557 prohibited a defendant in a capital case from entering an unqualified plea of guilty in the absence of a plea agreement from the district attorney that the State would not seek the death penalty. [4] The defense asserts that this flaw in the capital sentencing scheme denied Langley the right to plead guilty and the right to present evidence of remorse to the jury. This Court has held that there was no prejudice in the statutory scheme which requires that a plea of not guilty be entered in a capital case. State v. Watson, 423 So.2d 1130, 1134 (La.1982). In Watson, the defense argued that the trial court erred by not allowing him to plead guilty in the first phase of trial because the overwhelming evidence of guilt prejudiced the jury. In holding that Watson did not suffer prejudice the Court noted that: In the guilt phase, he did not present any evidence to the jury which challenged the prosecution's evidence of guilt. In opening argument of the penalty phase, he could have pointed out the foregoing fact to the jury and argued that the only issue from the outset was life or death, pointing out that he was required by law to plead not guilty in the first phase in order to contest the issue in the penalty phase. Id.