Opinion ID: 1861873
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the lower court erred in allowing additional sworn testimony purportedly covering aggravating circumstances during a sentencing hearing.

Text: The appellant has failed to cite any authority in support of this assigned Error III, and there is no requirement on this Court to address the same. Burk v. State, 506 So.2d 993 (Miss. 1986); Carter v. State, 493 So.2d 327, 329 (Miss. 1986); and Ramseur v. State, 368 So.2d 842, 844 (Miss. 1979); Shive v. State, 507 So.2d 898, 900 (Miss. 1987). However, we note that Rule 5.13(2)(b) and (c) of the Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice state: (b) The State may introduce evidence of aggravation of the offense to which the defendant has been convicted or pleaded guilty. (c) The defendant may introduce in evidence any evidence he deems necessary to contradict or supplement any information contained in the presentence investigation report. The trial judge here, sitting without a jury, had broad discretion in the things he was able to consider. He may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which it may come. See United States v. Barnett, 587 F.2d 252 (5th Cir.1979). We are of the opinion there is no merit in assigned Error III and it is rejected.