STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
RAY LAMAR JOHNSTON, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State of Florida sought a writ of certiorari challenging a trial court's order precluding victim impact evidence during the penalty phase of a capital murder prosecution. The appellate court certified the issue to the Florida Supreme Court as one requiring immediate resolution due to its unique constitutional significance in capital cases.
The appellate court did not resolve the merits but instead certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court as one requiring immediate resolution, finding the issue peculiarly unique to capital cases and of great effect on the proper administration of justice throughout the state.
[1] Victim impact evidence is permissible during the penalty phase of capital prosecutions.
[2] Trial judges must carefully assess the probative and prejudicial value of victim impact evidence before admitting it.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Our supreme court has approved the admission of victim impact evidence to a jury during the penalty phase in capital prosecutions.”
Establishes that victim impact evidence is generally permitted in capital cases under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a capital murder prosecution against Ray Lamar Johnston, the trial court issued an order barring the State from presenting any victim impact eviden…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Penalty Phase Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida petitions this court for a writ of certiorari challenging the trial court’s order in a capital murder prosecution which precludes, in the event of a conviction for first-degree murder, the State from presenting to the jury during the penalty phase of the trial any victim impact evidence authorized by section 921.141(7), Florida Statutes (1995).
Our supreme court has approved the admission of victim impact evidence to a jury during the penalty phase in capital prosecutions. See Windom v. State, 656 So. 2d 432, 438 (Fla.1995). See also Burns v. State, 699 So. 2d 646, 654 (Fla.1997). The statute sets limits on the content of victim impact evidence by prohibiting characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the suitable sentence, and trial judges must scrupulously examine the probative and prejudicial value of this evidence before permitting its introduction. In the case before us, the trial court determined that victim impact evidence is itself so inherently prejudicial that it has barred the State from presenting it to the jury in any form without any proffer by the State of its content; in its order the trial court allowed that, following a jury’s recommendation in the penalty phase, it would entertain any victim impact evidence the State chose to present exclusively to the court.
The issue raised by the trial court’s interlocutory order is peculiarly unique to a capital case and the imposition of the death penalty; as such it is appropriate to defer its resolution to the Florida Supreme Court. See State v. Hootman, 697 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)(analyzing the appellate courts’ jurisdiction over capital prosecutions and the propriety of certifying questions of this nature to the supreme court).
Determination of the propriety of the trial court’s order will have a great effect on the proper administration of justice throughout this state, and, accordingly, we certify that it requires immediate resolution by the Florida Supreme Court pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(5), of the Florida Constitution and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.125.
FULMER, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Johnston, 743 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…ion 16(b), Florida Constitution; section 921.141(7), Florida Statutes (1997); and the Florida Evidence Code. Certiorari granted and order of the trial court quashed. FULMER, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ„ Concur. . In State v. Johnston, 712 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), we certified that the issue raised in this proceeding required immediate resolution by the Florida Supreme Court pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(5) of the Florida Constitution and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.125. Th…
Authorities Cited
- Windom v. State, 656 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1995)
- Burns v. State, 699 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1997)
- State v. Hootman, 697 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)