Preview:

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 93-KA-2692 STATE OF LOUISIANA V. CHRISTOPHER SEPULVADO ON APPEAL FROM THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF DESOTO, STATE OF LOUISIANA, HONORABLE ROBERT E. BURGESS, PRESIDING JUDGE MARCUS, Justice

Christopher Sepulvado was indicted for the first degree murder of his six year old stepson, Wesley Allen Mercer, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1 found guilty as charged. After trial by jury, defendant was

A sentencing hearing was conducted before The jury

the same jury that determined the issue of guilt.

unanimously recommended that a sentence of death be imposed on defendant. The trial judge sentenced defendant to death in

accordance with the recommendations of the jury. On appeal, defendant relies on eighteen assignments of error2 for reversal of his conviction and sentence.3

Defendant's wife, Yvonne Sepulvado, was also charged with first degree murder. Subsequently, the charge was reduced to second degree murder. She was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty-one years at hard labor, and her conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. State v. Sepulvado, 26,948 (La. App. 2d Cir. 5/10/95), 655 So. 2d 623, writ denied, 95-1437 (La. 11/13/95), 662 So. 2d 465. Defendant misnumbered the last four assignments of error in his brief to this court, since the assignments skip from XIV to XVII. To prevent confusion, this opinion will refer to the assignments according to the misnumbered enumeration. The assignments of error not discussed in this opinion do not represent reversible error and are governed by clearly established principles of law. They will be reviewed in an (continued...)
3 2

1

FACTS On Thursday, March 5, 1992, defendant married the

victim's mother, Yvonne.

The next day, Friday, the victim came Yvonne spanked

home from school, having defecated in his pants. him and refused to give him supper. work at approximately 9:00 p.m.

Defendant returned home from

That night, the victim was not

allowed to change his clothes and was made to sleep on a trunk at the foot of his bed. On Saturday, the victim was not allowed to

eat and was again made to sleep on the trunk in his soiled clothes. At around 10:00 a.m. on Sunday, defendant and the victim were in the bathroom, preparing to attend church services. Defendant

instructed the victim to wash out his soiled underwear in the toilet and then take a bath. When the victim hesitated to do so,

defendant hit him over the head with the handle of a screwdriver several times with enough force to render him unconscious.

Thereafter, the victim was immersed in the bathtub which was filled with scalding hot water. Approximately three hours later, at around 1:50 p.m., defendant and his wife brought the victim to the emergency room at the hospital. At that time the victim was not breathing, had no

pulse, and probably had been dead for approximately thirty to sixty minutes. All attempts to revive the victim were futile. The cause

of death was attributed to the scald burns covering 60% of the victim's body, primarily on his backside. There were third degree

burns over 58% of the body and second degree burns on the remaining 2%. The scalding was so severe that the victim's skin had been In addition to the burns, medical examination The victim's and

burned away.

revealed that the victim had been severely beaten. scalp had separated from his skull due to

hemorrhaging

bruising.

Also, there were deep bruises on the victim's buttocks

(...continued) appendix which will not be published but the record in this case. 2

will comprise part of

and groin which were not consistent with accidental injury. At trial, defendant admitted that he hit the victim with a screwdriver, but contended that the victim fell into the tub accidentally. However, the state presented expert testimony that

the burn marks on the victim's body did not indicate he accidentally fell into the tub, since there were no signs of splash marks that would result from a struggle. The experts testified that the

marks were consistent with the victim being dipped or immersed into the scalding water.

DISCUSSION Scope of Review In State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La. 2/28/96), ___ So. 2d ___, we overruled our decision in State v. Smith, 554 So. 2d 676 (La. 1989), and returned to the previous standard of review in which errors not contemporaneously objected to during the guilt phase of a capital case were not reviewable on appeal, although unobjected to errors during the sentencing phase were reviewable, as mandated by La. Code Crim. P. art. 905.9 and Supreme Court Rule 28,

Download 93ka2692.opn.pdf

Louisiana Law