# State of Louisiana v. Eric Dale Mickelson

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · September 3, 2014 · 149 So. 3d 178

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9803270

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Louisiana v. Eric Dale MICKELSON
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** September 3, 2014
- **Citations:** 149 So. 3d 178; 2014 La. LEXIS 1821; 2014 WL 4356305
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Victory
- **Judges:** Weimer, Guidry, Victory, Hughes, Clark, Johnson, Knoll
- **Cited by:** 73 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9803270

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting a challenge for cause should be granted, even when a prospective juror declares his or her ability to remain impartial, if the juror's responses, as a whole, reveal facts from which bias, prejudice, or inability to render a judgment according to law may be reasonably in…

## Opinion text

VICTORY, J.,
additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Li concur in the majority opinion’s holding that the district court erred in denying defendant’s cause challenge of prospective juror, Roy Johnson. Johnson unequivocally and consistently expressed that he would not consider all relevant mitigating circumstances at the penalty phase of defendant’s capital trial. He was never rehabilitated by the state or the court on this point.
However, I write separately to point out another error that occurred during the penalty phase. In 1999, the legislature amended La.C.Cr.P. art. 905.2(A) to provide that “[t]he sentencing hearing shall focus on the circumstances of the offense, the character and propensities of the offender, and the victim, and the impact that the crime has had on the victim, family members, friends, and associates.” (Emphasis added). Because the character and propensities of the victim can be as much a focus of a capital sentencing proceeding under this statutory enactment as are the defendant’s, the district court erred in excluding the testimony of Danita Larson about the victim’s character and propensities. 1
. This testimony is in the record because it was proferred by the defendant.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9803270. Public record. Not legal advice.