Opinion ID: 1742511
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Diary as Other Crimes Evidence

Text: The defense also argues that the prosecution's opening at the penalty phase constitutes reversible error because the comments refer to other crimes, and there was no evidence that the diary was about actual events rather than just dreams or fantasies. At oral argument before this court, defense counsel conceded that the only real objection to the prosecution's comments was that he believed they were not true. However, the record shows that there was at least an arguable evidentiary basis for the comments. Prior to the assistant district attorney's penalty phase opening, there had been no testimony as to whether the diary passages recounted actual events or only Langley's fantasies; defense counsel simply referred to the diary as dreams or fantasies. During the penalty phase, Dr. Heindel stated, I think he was writing down his dreams. I think Ms. Harden, [a Georgia prison official] who saw him first, instructed him or asked him to keep a diary. Dr. Heindel also said that he asked the defendant to write down his dreams. In referring directly to the defendant taking children into the woods, Dr. Heindel said: And, there wasI think the one that disturbed me the mostand I'm really not sure how much of it was dream and how much was fantasy. But, I think it's described about taking a child or children into the woods. And, it was so vivid to me that I think it scared me. It was very unusual. On cross-examination Dr. Heindel stated that he was not certain that the entries referred only to dreams or fantasies, but he believed they did. Dr. Heindel's testimony that the vivid and unusual diary entries scared him suggests that they may have represented more than just a dream or fantasy. In addition, Dr. Heindel conceded that fantasies and dreams usually groom the behavior, and that it was a possibility that Langley had acted out his fantasies. In closing, the defense argued that the jury should use commonsense with regard to the argument that the diary referred to something other than dreams or fantasies. Then, on rebuttal, the prosecution again asserted the actuality of the events described in the diary: Let me quote fromthis is Georgia Department of Corrections record from January 12, 1987: We dealt with some of his feelings. And I made the recommendation that he start keeping a diary and dealing with his feelings. And in dealing with some of the things that have happened in the past, and what his feelings was surrounding them. Fantasies and dreams, I don't think so. Things that happened in the past. You know that this man was a terrorizer of children. The quoted passage indicates that Langley was asked to write not only about fantasies, but about things that have happened in the past. We also note that Dr. Ware's earlier testimony about Langley's account of a prior molestation suggests an arguable possibility that Langley's diary recounted actual events. Thus, there was at least some evidentiary basis for the State's argument that Langley could have recounted actual events in his diary, and the prosecution was allowed this fair comment on that evidence. Further, the State had the right to challenge defendant's characterization of the diary contents as only dreams and fantasies. See State v. Jackson, 608 So.2d 949, 957 (La.1992) (trial judge to determine relevance of rebuttal evidence); State v. Davis, 411 So.2d 434 (La.1982). The defense introduced the diary to show dreams or fantasies that purportedly demonstrated a mental defect as a mitigating factor. However, the defense had no right to expect that its view of the diary as mere fantasy would be unopposed. The prosecution was not required to tacitly concede that the entries represented only imagined events.