Opinion ID: 1149193
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Jackson Violation

Text: Finally, the defendant claims the State went beyond the necessary presentation to prove the earlier robberies and thereby introduced an arbitrary factor into the sentencing phase of the trial. The defendant was originally charged with armed robbery in connection with the Cortana Mall incident, but eventually pled guilty to two counts of simple robbery. As an initial matter, the record reveals that when presenting evidence of the Cortana Mall robberies, the district attorney adhered to the rule of State v. Jackson, 608 So.2d 949 (La.1992), which specifically prohibit[s] evidence of the original charge when the conviction is for a lesser offense. Id. at 954. However, Jackson also limit[s] the evidence supporting the conviction ... to the testimony of the victim[s] or of any eyewitness to the crime. Id. In the instant case, the State presented not only the testimony of both victims of the Cortana robberies but also the testimony of the officer who responded to the call, chased the defendant, apprehended him, and returned him to the victims for identification. Consequently, it appears that the State technically violated the rule set out in Jackson. In Jackson, this court explicitly recognized that evidence of a defendant's past convictions of serious and unrelated crimes was extremely probative of and relevant to the character and propensities of the defendant. Id. However, Jackson is a jurisprudential rule created to prevent the injection of arbitrary factors into sentencing. Upon a review of the record, it is apparent the police officer's testimony did not inject an arbitrary factor into the jury's deliberations. [14] In fact, even though the defendant was originally charged with armed robbery, both victims' testimony was strictly limited to the robbery, and there was no mention or implication the defendant effectuated the robbery with a gun. Furthermore, the testimony of the victims' and the officer who apprehended the defendant comprises less than six pages of the record. Accordingly, the introduction of the police officer's testimony, although an error, does not rise to the level of reversible error.