Opinion ID: 1060063
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constitutional Admissibility

Text: We have previously decided that victim impact testimony is relevant to punishment in a capital murder prosecution in Virginia. Weeks v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 460, 476, 450 S.E.2d 379, 389-90 (1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 100, 133 L.Ed.2d 55 (1995). There, we relied on the statement in Payne that [a] State may legitimately conclude that evidence about the victim and about the impact of the murder on the victim's family is relevant to the ... decision as to whether or not the death penalty shall be imposed. 501 U.S. at 827, 111 S.Ct. at 2609. Citing the foregoing language in Payne, Beck maintains that Payne limits the source of victim impact evidence to family members. We disagree. No such limitation is either express or implied by this language. To the contrary, the Court was describing the nature, not the source, of victim impact evidence. Indeed, it has been expressly recognized that the impact of the loss of the victim of a murder may extend beyond the victim's family members to the victim's friends and community. Id. at 830, 111 S.Ct. at 2611 (O'Connor, J., concurring). Human experience and common knowledge support this recognition of the unique worth of the individual. Thus, there is no merit to Beck's assertion that victim impact evidence is constitutionally limited to that received from the victim's family members. We hold that the admissibility of victim impact evidence during the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial is limited only by the relevance of such evidence to show the impact of the defendant's actions. While statements from the immediate family members of the deceased will normally be the best source of such evidence, the Eighth Amendment does not restrict the trial court from looking to statements of others well acquainted with the victim. Such evidence provides the sentencing authority with an understanding of the individualized circumstances present in the life of the victim and the specific harm caused by the crime in question. Id. at 825, 111 S.Ct. at 2608. So long as its prejudicial effect does not outweigh its probative value, such evidence is beneficial to the determination of an individualized sentence as is required by the Eighth Amendment. Id.; see also Wesley v. State, 112 Nev. 503, 916 P.2d 793, 804 (1996)(victim impact evidence from neighbors, co-workers and others did not violate defendant's Eighth Amendment rights).