Opinion ID: 1262473
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Questions Concerning Parole Eligibility

Text: The defense proposed a voir dire question which informed the jury that Eaton would be ineligible for parole by reason of sentences previously imposed upon him for his other murders. The question also asked the jurors whether they could consider a sentence less than death if they were instructed not to concern themselves with the possibility of parole or of Eaton's ultimate return to society. The court sustained the Commonwealth's objection to the question and Eaton assigns error to that ruling. Information regarding parole eligibility is not relevant evidence to be considered by the jury. Spencer IV, 240 Va. at 85, 393 S.E.2d at 613; Watkins v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 341, 351, 385 S.E.2d 50, 56 (1989), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 1797, 108 L.Ed.2d 798 (1990); Williams v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 168, 178-80, 360 S.E.2d 361, 367-68 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1020, 108 S.Ct. 733, 98 L.Ed.2d 681 (1988); Poyner v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 401, 418-19, 329 S.E.2d 815, 828, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865, 888, 106 S.Ct. 189, 208, 88 L.Ed.2d 158, 178 (1985). Indeed, the jury has no right to be advised of post-sentencing events. Id. at 432, 329 S.E.2d at 836. The Supreme Court has expressly left this question to be determined by the States, as a matter of state law. California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1013-14, 103 S.Ct. 3446, 3460, 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983). Therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing Eaton's proposed voir dire question. [6]