Opinion ID: 2621639
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony about brutality of killings

Text: In response to a question asking how she had learned of the Garcias' deaths and how the news had affected her, Phyllis Eileen Goodbarn testified that someone had told her that Earl and Doris Garcia had been brutally murdered, that their throats had been slit, and that this was a terrible, terrible shock. Later, Donald Stephen Garcia, the victims' son, testified that he had cleaned the bloodstains from his parents' house and that he had decided to sell the property because it was such a savage act, I just couldn't have the memory of their murder that close to me. He also testified that he had been forced to suppress his memories of his parents. He gave this explanation: [I]f I think about them I'm miserable, so if I don't think about them, I'm not miserable. So it's kind of like my childhood was taken from me and any memory of my parents was taken from me because the  the major problem I have is the savageness of this murder because he knew his parents must have suffered greatly during the last 15 minutes of their lives. The defense did not object, move to strike, or request an admonition. The Attorney General argues that by not objecting, moving to strike, or requesting an admonition, the defense forfeited any claim that this testimony was inadmissible. (Evid.Code, § 353; see People v. Navarette, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 515, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 89, 66 P.3d 1182.) Defendant argues that trial counsel could not have objected without appearing callous, and thereby alienating the jury, and for this reason we should excuse the normal requirement of a timely objection and a request for an admonition. We reject this argument for the reasons explain above in part III.B.1. In any event, the evidence was admissible. The witnesses did not testify merely to their personal opinions about the murders. Rather, their testimony was limited to how the crimes had directly affected them. Goodbarn testified that she was intensely shocked not only by the fact of the Garcias' deaths, but also by the brutal manner in which they died. Donald Stephen Garcia testified that the circumstances of his parents' deaths made it impossible for him to remember his parents or his own childhood without in some manner imagining the suffering of their final minutes. This was proper and admissible victim impact evidence. As in Payne v. Tennessee, supra, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, the testimony illustrated quite poignantly some of the harm that [defendant's] killing[s] had caused; there is nothing unfair about allowing the jury to bear in mind that harm at the same time as it considers the mitigating evidence introduced by the defendant. ( Id. at p. 826, 111 S.Ct. 2597.)