Opinion ID: 1058852
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of Rueben Harrison, Sr.

Text: Juniper contends the trial court erred in refusing to allow Juniper to call witness Rueben Harrison, Sr. [the father of one of the decedents] regarding the imposition of the death penalty. Juniper asked the trial court to permit Harrison, Sr. to testify about remarks attributed to him by the news media to the effect that as a Christian he cannot hope that jurors impose the death penalty. The trial court denied Juniper's request. Juniper argues that Harrison, Sr.'s testimony should have been permitted because he was the father of one of the victims, and thus a victim permitted to testify under Code § 19.2-264.4 and Code § 19.2-11.01. Furthermore, Juniper contends the testimony Harrison, Sr. would have given was relevant under Code § 19.2-299.1(vi), which permits victim impact testimony that provide[s] such other information as the court may require related to the impact of the offense upon the victim. The Commonwealth responds that Harrison, Sr.'s potential testimony does not fall within the scope of victim impact testimony authorized under Code § 19.2-299.1 and is not relevant to the ultimate decision of sentence, which is the sole province of the jury. We agree with the Commonwealth. The opinion of Harrison, Sr. as to the appropriate sentence for Juniper is not an item encompassed within Code § 19.2-229.1(i) through (vi), [19] which sets forth the only factors about which testimony by a victim are permitted. See Code § 19.2-264.4(A1). More importantly, witness opinion on what the jury should decide as the appropriate sentence in a given case is not admissible. It is irrelevant to the sentencing decision, which is only for the jury to make. A victim called as a witness by the Commonwealth would clearly not be permitted to opine as to his or her preferred sentence for the defendant. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 830 n. 2, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991) ( Booth [ v. Maryland ] also held that the admission of a victim's family members' characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence violates the Eighth Amendment.); Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 508-09, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987) (The admission of these emotionally charged opinions as to what conclusions the jury should draw from the evidence clearly is inconsistent with the reasoned decisionmaking we require in capital cases.); see also Humphries v. Ozmint, 397 F.3d 206, 217 (4th Cir.2005) ([T]he Payne Court did not alter Booth 's holding that admitting evidence of the victims' opinions of the crime and of the appropriate sentence for the defendant violates the Eighth Amendment . ...). The trial court did not err in excluding the requested testimony of Rueben Harrison, Sr.