Opinion ID: 1059146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: testimony from victim's son

Text: Jackson claims that the circuit court abused its discretion by allowing Mrs. Phillips' son to testify during the sentencing phase of the trial because he remained in the courtroom after he testified during the guilt phase in violation of the court's order sequestering the witnesses. According to the defendant, the son's presence in the courtroom throughout the trial unduly influenced the jury. We do not agree. Pursuant to the provisions of Code § 19.2-265.01, a victim, which includes Mrs. Phillips' son, see Code § 19.2-11.01(B), may remain in the courtroom and shall not be excluded unless the court determines, in its discretion, the presence of the victim would impair the conduct of a fair trial. We cannot say in this case that the court abused its discretion by allowing Mrs. Phillips' son to remain in the courtroom after he testified during the guilt phase of the trial. The court correctly concluded that Mrs. Phillips' son did not learn anything while he was present in the court that would have changed or affected his victim impact testimony during the penalty phase. Thus, the defendant was not prejudiced by the fact that Mrs. Phillips' son testified during the penalty phase after having heard much of the testimony during the guilt phase. See Bennett, 236 Va. at 465, 374 S.E.2d at 314 (a trial court has discretion to decide whether a witness who violates an order excluding witnesses from the courtroom can testify, and prejudice to the defendant is one factor to consider when answering that question).