Opinion ID: 1930604
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Bill of Information

Text: The bill of information was introduced in order to underpin the aggravating circumstance that one of the victims, was a witness in a prosecution against defendant... La.C.Cr.P. art. 905.4(h). As discussed supra, this aggravating circumstance was not proved. While the failure of an aggravating circumstance may not of itself impair the sentence, the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence in support of the circumstance could inject an arbitrary factor in the sentencing process. State v. Sawyer, 442 So.2d 1136, 1139 (La. 1983). The only possible manner in which this evidence could be admissible is to show the character and propensity of the accused. In capital cases, the jury is to focus on the character and propensity of the accused together with the circumstances surrounding the commission of the specifically intended killing. La.C.Cr.P. art. 905.2. The defendant does not have to put his character at issue. As we stated in State v. Jordan, 440 So.2d 716 (La.1983), It is axiomatic that the conviction per se puts the offender's character at issue. 440 So.2d at 720. This principle is supported by the clear language of La.C.Cr.P. art. 905.2. However that section also provides that, [t]he hearing shall be conducted according to the rules of evidence. We interpret this to mean that only competent evidence that is relevant to the character and propensities of the accused is admissible under La.C.Cr.P. art. 905.2. A bare bill of information filed by the district attorney charging defendant with an unrelated crime, is not competent evidence of defendant's character. As pointed out by Justice Lemmon in a case recently handed down by this court, [t]his court has approved evidence of convictions of unrelated crimes in the penalty phase. However, this court has never made a square holding on the admissibility in the penalty phase of a capital case of evidence of an unrelated crime for which defendant has not been convicted. State v. Hamilton, 478 So.2d 123, 129-30 (La.1985). Evidence of an unrelated crime for which defendant has not been convicted is highly relevant as to a convicted killer's character and propensities and is arguably admissible. However, this evidence must be competent, and it must be sufficient to convince the trier of fact that he did in fact commit the other crime. A bare bill of information standing alone without testimony as to the underlying facts and circumstances of the alleged other crime is insufficient and therefore inadmissible. We must now determine whether this inadmissible evidence introduced an arbitrary factor into the proceedings. The defendant was convicted of wiping out five members of a family, including a 4 year old girl, in a fit of jealousy. Given the overwhelming enormity of the defendant's crime, it is inconceivable the additional evidence that the defendant was charged with making harassing phone calls could have prejudiced the defendant.