Opinion ID: 1728307
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: assignments of error number eight and ten

Text: Defendant argues that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence not relevant to aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Also, defendant contends the trial judge erred in allowing the testimony of Detective Burns concerning fingerprints on the victim's car and in admitting into evidence the victim's raincoat with blood on it. In its case-in-chief, the state offered much of the same testimony and physical evidence presented during the guilt phase of Watson's trial. The physical evidence included certain articles of clothing found on the victim's body. Detective Burns, qualified as an expert witness in the field of latent fingerprint identification, explained through the use of enlarged pictures how a latent print from Kathy Newman's car was matched to a known fingerprint from Watson. All of this evidence was properly admitted at the guilt phase of trial. Defendant argues that this evidence was irrelevant in the sentencing proceeding, and LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 905.2 requires that the sentencing hearing shall be conducted according to the rules of evidence. One rule of evidence set out in LSA-R.S. 15:435, states that the evidence must be relevant to the material issue. Watson contends the only material issues at a sentencing hearing involve the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Defendant's arguments disregard the language of LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 905.2 which requires that [t]he sentencing hearing shall focus on the circumstances of the offense. This jury, which did not decide the issue of guilt, had to be provided with an accurate picture of the events surrounding Watson's first degree murder conviction to fulfill their responsibility of deciding an appropriate punishment. These assignments lack merit.