Opinion ID: 2588509
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Victim Impact Testimony of Thomas Carter

Text: Defendant contends the trial court violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by allowing Thomas Carter to testify about the impact of Peter Baeza's death. We conclude the trial court properly admitted the testimony. Carter testified that because he suffered from a seizure disorder, nobody would give him a jobexcept Baeza, who treated him like a son. Baeza helped Carter in getting financial assistance for his disability. Baeza treated Carter like a human being, whereas others did not. Prior to Baeza's death, Carter's seizures had improved and were almost gone. Since Baeza's death, Carter lost his job and was unable to find any other work. His physical condition deteriorated, and his fiancee left him. Baeza extended credit to many elderly people. Defendant contends the evidence should have been excluded because Carter was not a relative of Baeza's. The United States Supreme Court has not restricted the admissibility of victim impact evidence to relatives, however. The court has recognized the People are entitled to show the victim is an individual whose death represents a unique loss to society and in particular to his family. ( Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808, 825, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720.) Furthermore, the separate opinions in Payne recognized the broad scope of victim impact evidence. The jury may know the full extent of the harm caused by the crime, including its impact on the victim's family and community.  ( Payne v. Tennessee, supra, 501 U.S. 808, 830, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (cone. opn. of O'Connor, J.), italics added.) Murderers know their victims probably ha[ve] close associates, `survivors,' who will suffer harms and deprivations from the victim's death.... [T]hey know that their victims are not human islands, but individuals with parents or children, spouses or friends or dependents. ( Payne v. Tennessee, supra, 501 U.S. 808, 838, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (cone. opn. of Souter, J.), italics added.) We therefore have drawn from Payne that it is proper to refer to the status of the victim and the effect of his loss on friends, loved ones, and the community as a whole. ( People v. Fierro (1991) 1 Cal.4th 173, 236, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 426, 821 P.2d 1302.) Defendant's argument thus must rest on a purported distinction between the admissibility of evidence describing the murder's impact on nonrelatives, which we have permitted, and testimony by nonrelatives, to which defendant now objects. This distinction is unsound, however, and would prove unworkable in cases where the only available witnesses were not formally related to the victim. We therefore hold the trial court properly admitted the testimony of Thomas Carter.