Opinion ID: 2533183
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Family's reaction to father's death

Text: ¶ 151. Pitchford's next argument is that the trial court erred by refusing to permit him to put into context the mitigation evidence about how he reacted to his father's illness and death. He wanted to introduce information about how the family unit as a whole reacted by eliciting testimony from his brother and mother. The proffered testimony from Pitchford's brother, which the trial court refused to allow, was as follows: Q: Okay. How old were you when your dad died? A: Ten years old. Q: What effect  how did it make you feel? A: I was just  I was lacking somebody in my life. STATE: Objection, Your Honor. Your Honor, that has nothing to do with what we are here for today. I have tried not to object but this trial is not on what sentence their father should get. It is on what sentence this defendant should get. I would ask that any mitigation relate to this defendant and not something  DEFENSE: It is going to relate, Your Honor. It is going to directly towards the defendant. STATE: He also asked how this witness felt, which has absolutely nothing to do with the defendant. THE COURT: I'll sustain. ¶ 152. The proposed testimony from Pitchford's mother, which the trial court refused to allow, was as follows: Q: And you remember when Terry's father died; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: And how did that affect Terry? Before you answer that Miss Jackson, what kind of relationship did Terry and his dad have? A: They had a real close relationship. Terry's a twin. And he had  it was the last twin, the kids that he had. His daddy was 57 years old, and he was so proud of those twin boys that he had had. He always said that there is nowhere in the world that I can go that I can't take my boys. And when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer, Dr. Armstrong sent him to Oxford, Mississippi. And he told me  STATE: Your Honor, I object. What her and her husband  DEFENSE: Your Honor  STATE:  talked about is not relevant DEFENSE:  mitigation  STATE: May I finish my objection, Your Honor? What her and her husband talked about is not relevant on mitigation for this defendant. . . . COURT: Well, I think you just at this point need to restate your question. And I mean  she was getting into an issue of how  what Dr. Armstrong said and how it affected her and Mr. Jackson. DEFENSE: Yes, sir. I understand that. I don't think I asked that. ¶ 153. Because the testimony did not relate to defendant's character, the record, or the circumstances of the crime, [93] the trial court properly excluded it.
¶ 154. Pitchford's next assignment of error is that the trial court erred by allowing improper evidence during the penalty phase of the trial. He points to three instances of purported error.