Opinion ID: 1742511
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Prosecution's Comments About Defendant's Diary

Text: In his first argument under this assignment, the defendant contends that the prosecution was improperly allowed to admit prior bad acts taken from the diary. The acts in question are instances of child molestation and terrorization described in the diary. The defense referred to the events as dreams or fantasies, while the prosecution argued that the diary entries recounted actual events. Notably, neither the diary entries nor the prosecution referred to any prior murders by Langley. During the guilt phase, the defense introduced the diary evidence when the following excerpt from the May 11, 1988 report was read into evidence by Dr. Rathmell, on the defendant's direct examination: Today he [Langley] showed me his diary which included several pages describing his sexual abuse of children, in which he would lure them into the woods and being to [sic] perform some sexual acts with them. When they begged to go home, he would take them further into the woods telling them this was the way home. During these episodes, he wrote that he was resolved to murdering the children after the acts, but apparently, at least in the cases of which he wrote, this did not occur. Later, in the opening statement in the penalty phase, the assistant district attorney stated: Remember the Georgia Department of Correctionsand this is part of his character and propensitythe Georgia Department of Corrections records which talked about his diary and how he wrote. This wasn't a fantasy. He wrote of instances in the past where he had taken children The defense objected, arguing that this was not evidence and never would be. The trial judge overruled the objection on the grounds that, in the opening penalty argument the prosecution was permitted to say what it expected to prove during the penalty phase. The Assistant District Attorney then continued to read the passage and to assert that it represented actual acts of abuse. The scope of the State's opening statement is prescribed in La.C.Cr.P. art. 766, which provides that it shall explain the nature of the charge, and set forth, in general terms, the nature of the evidence by which the state expects to prove the charge. In telling the jury that the defense had written in his diary about actual events, the prosecutor was explaining her interpretation of the diary and stating what she hoped to prove in the penalty phase; she was challenging the defense's characterization of the diary as simply dream or fantasy. The scope of the opening statement is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Kinchen, 342 So.2d 174, 176 (La.1977). The trial judge did not abuse his discretion, but properly allowed the prosecutor's statement. Even if the comments had exceeded the scope of acceptable argument, this Court will not reverse unless it is thoroughly convinced that the remarks influenced the jury and contributed to the verdict. See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 21 (La.2/28/96), 669 So.2d 364, 375. Through Dr. Heindel's testimony, the defense was able to challenge the State's characterization. Moreover, through the defense's examination of Dr. Rathmell in the guilt phase, the jury already knew of Langley's damaging and troubling statement that he had the urge to kill the children. In addition, the jury had already heard Dr. Ware testify at the guilt phase that Langley had discussed molesting a seven-year-old boy and threatening him with a gun. Deferring to the good sensibility and fairmindedness of the jury, we are not convinced that the disputed particular remarks improperly influenced the jury. Id. This argument lacks merit.