Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the offense.” Nothing prevented the jury from considering any circumstances of the offense as mitigation. 4. Victim Impact Statement ¶ 125 The trial court instructed the jury it could consider Gina’s victim impact statement “to the extent that it rebuts mitigation.” Forde asserts that the instruction was erroneous because Gina’s statement did not rebut any mitigation evidence, and the instruction therefore permitted the jury to consider the statement as an improper non-statutory aggravator. Because Forde did not object to this instruction, we review for fundamental error. ¶ 126 Victim impact evidence “rebuts” mitigation by informing the sentencer about the specific harm caused by the defendant. Cf Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 825, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991) (<HOLDING>) (citation and internal quotation marks 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction (B) holding that victim impact evidence properly reminds the sentencer that just as the murderer should be considered as an individual so too the victim is an individual whose death represents a unique loss to society and in particular to his family (C) holding that the death of a victim may not be considered an aggravating factor in a homicide sentencing (D) holding that the victim impact and victim vulnerability aggravators were not overbroad and explaining that though the concepts of victim impact and victim vulnerability may well be relevant in every case evidence of victim vulnerability and victim impact in a particular case is inherently individualized (E) holding statute requiring that murderer be deemed to have predeceased victim thereby entitling victim to all joint tenancy property was not an unconstitutional forfeiture
Output (English): holding statute requiring that murderer be deemed to have predeceased victim thereby entitling victim to all joint tenancy property was not an unconstitutional forfeiture