Opinion ID: 2621639
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony of victims' friends

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred in permitting victim impact evidence by three persons  Phyllis Eileen Goodbarn, Barbara Ann Valett, and Grace Olive Jensen  who were friends of the victims but not members of their family. Defendant argues that only family members can give victim impact testimony. Defendant is mistaken. The purpose of victim impact evidence is to demonstrate the immediate harm caused by the defendant's criminal conduct. This harm is not limited to the effect of the victims' deaths on the members of their immediate family; it extends also to the suffering and loss inflicted on close personal friends. (See People v. Kirkpatrick (1994) 7 Cal.4th 988, 1017, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 818, 874 P.2d 248 [prosecutor's comments about likely suffering of victims' friends was well within the boundaries of permissible victim impact argument]; Sullivan v. State (Del.1994) 636 A.2d 931, 939-940 [testimony by victim's neighbor was proper victim impact evidence].) Defendant also contends that only persons who were present at the murder scene during or immediately after the killing can provide victim impact testimony, that such testimony can describe only circumstances known or reasonably foreseeable to the defendant at the time of the crime, and that victim impact testimony should be limited to a single witness. Defendant is mistaken. We have approved victim impact testimony from multiple witnesses who were not present at the murder scene and who described circumstances and victim characteristics unknown to the defendant. (See, e.g., People v. Boyette, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 440-441, 443-445, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 58 P.3d 391.) Finally, we reject defendant's argument that, if section 190.3, factor (a) (`circumstances of the crime') is interpreted to include a broad array of victim impact evidence, it is unconstitutionally vague. ( Boyette, at p. 445, fn. 12, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 58 P.3d 391.)