Court Opinion

ID: 9705367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:04:26.316838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:10.485864
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
¶ 31. (concurring). As a general principle, the law should not allow the victim, in seeking punishment for the defendant, to lie about a material fact without fear of contradiction. Because I perceive the holding in this case to be very narrow, and very much in line with this general principle, I concur.
¶ 32. ' The majority does not hold, as the dissent by Justice Prosser says, that a victim's entire criminal record is admissible when it arguably supports the *512defendant's view of the crime. See Prosser, J., dissenting at 521.
¶ 33. I read the majority as holding that when the victim or his or her supporters disputes the provocative circumstances leading up to the crime by misstating a material fact about the victim, the defendant does not have to stand helplessly by in the face of the lie.
¶ 34. Here, the victim's witnesses disputed the provocative nature of the victim's initial attack on the defendant. In doing so, one of the victim's supporters lied about a material fact. She said that "he had a good heart, and I guess it took a woman to take him away from us because he would never hurt a woman. He would never hurt a woman." Majority op. at 501.
¶ 35. That is a lie. On March 6,1993, according to a criminal complaint in the record, the victim seriously injured a woman during the theft of her purse.
¶ 36. A victim's lie about a material fact should not be allowed to stand uncorrected. The defendant "must be given an opportunity to rebut or explain misinformation upon which the trial relies or to which it is exposed in its sentencing decision." State v. Behrnes, 706 So. 2d 179, 182 (La. Ct. App. 1997) (citing State v. Cox, 369 So. 2d 118 (La. 1979)). See also U.S. v. Castellanos, 904 F.2d 1490, 1495 (11th Cir. 1990); U.S. v. Saintil, 753 F.2d 984, 990 (11th Cir. 1985).
¶ 37. The principle that a defendant has a right to correct a victim's lie about a material fact does no damage to the advancement of victims' rights. There may be occasion to find an exception to that general principle, but not this case. Here, the victim's prior record puts the lie to his supporter's statement. It should be admitted. I concur.