Opinion ID: 2369355
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Contents of Wallets

Text: We find no error in allowing a police officer to testify as to the contents of the victims' wallets. The state was entitled to show that they had been removed from the bodies by the defendant, and they were properly received in evidence. As is the case with most of us, the wallets contained mostly credit cards, along with information indicating that the victims were respectable citizens, one having served in the armed forces and another having done volunteer work. This information is hardly prejudicial to the defendant. There is not the least resemblance to Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), in which a detailed victim impact statement was received in evidence, or to South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805, 109 S.Ct. 2207, 104 L.Ed.2d 876 (1989), in which the prosecutor extolled the victim's character in oral argument by referring to a printed prayer and a voter's registration card found among his personal effects. It is also significant that, in this case, the wallets were properly in evidence and could have been passed to the jury for inspection. One who takes a pocket testament in a robbery may expect that it will be offered in evidence against him.