Opinion ID: 2417351
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Error in Allowing Reference to Defendant's AIDS

Text: Tokar next claims that the trial court erred by admitting evidence that he had AIDS during the penalty phase. A felon who had served time in the cell adjacent to Tokar's cell testified, over a defense objection, that Tokar told him that he had AIDS and had nothing to lose by committing additional crimes. Tokar claims that having the disease is regarded as disgraceful and that the word AIDS inspires greater loathing than murder does. Tokar further contends that admitting evidence of his AIDS diagnosis was irrelevant, prejudicial, and a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights because it allowed the jurors to use unconstitutional factors in determining his sentence. See State v. Taylor, 473 S.W.2d 385 (Mo.1971) (where this Court reversed a criminal conviction because the trial court admitted evidence that defendant was a pimp); State v. Baber, 297 S.W.2d 439 (Mo.1956) (where this Court reversed a criminal conviction after the trial court allowed evidence that defendant was an adulterer). Trial courts retain broad discretion over issues of relevancy and admissibility of evidence, and those decisions will not be interfered with unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Parkhurst, 845 S.W.2d 31, 36 (Mo. banc 1992). Evidence will be relevant as long as it logically tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue. State v. Hill, 817 S.W.2d 584, 587 (Mo.App.E.D.1991). During the penalty phase, defense counsel argued that when Tokar was not under the influence of alcohol, he could appreciate and conform to rules and behave nonaggressively. Defense counsel wanted the jury to believe that Tokar was emotionally disturbed and failed to appreciate the criminality of his conduct only when under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, according to defense counsel, a sentence of life imprisonment without parole would be sufficient punishment in Tokar's case. The prosecutor did not present this testimony from Tokar's prison-mate to disparage Tokar's character. Instead, this evidence was relevant in the penalty phase to rebut the defense's plea that alcohol was the main catalyst in Tokar's crimes. A defendant's character is always relevant in the sentencing context. State v. Six, 805 S.W.2d at 166. The fact that Tokar said he had nothing to lose because he had the AIDS virus demonstrates his lack of good character and that alcohol was not the only cause of Tokar's crimes. Presumably Tokar was not under the influence of alcohol when making this statement in prison. The statement demonstrates Tokar's lack of respect for the justice system and his victims, and the words reveal a purposeful intent to commit future crimes. The mere fact that the prison-mate's testimony included information of Tokar's infliction with the AIDS virus did not render the testimony excessively prejudicial. The trial court did not err. The point is denied.