Opinion ID: 2387024
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Victim-impact evidence at the guilt phase

Text: Defendant contends victim-impact evidence was admitted at the guilt phase in violation of his right to a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and article I, sections 7, 15, 17, and 24 of the California Constitution. During the guilt phase, after questioning Shahbakhti concerning the circumstances of the shooting that took place in front of the Vons market, and concerning his resulting injuries and medical treatment, the prosecutor inquired: Ha[ve] there been any lasting health problems associated withor any psychological problems that you have as a result of this gunshot wound? The defense objected to the question as compound. After the court overruled that objection, defense counsel stated, Objection, relevance as to a portion of the question. [20] The court overruled that objection. Shahbakhti then responded, I still see a psychiatrist because of post-traumatic disorder, which is anxiety, and, yes, I'm permanently disabled. I will never get the entire full function of my right arm back. Shahbakhti's testimony that he was permanently disabled and never would regain the full function of his arm was relevant to the allegation of infliction of great bodily injury. (§ 12022.7.) The sole aspect of this testimony that was irrelevant at the guilt phase was the statement that I still see a psychiatrist because of post-traumatic disorder, which is anxiety .... The admission of this evidence was harmless error, however, because it is not reasonably probable that a result more favorable to [defendant] would have been reached in the absence of the error. ( Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836.) [21] As noted above, in part II.B.2., the properly admitted evidence establishing that defendant was the individual who committed the crimes at the Vons market was overwhelming. In addition, Shahbakhti's and Weidmann's descriptions of the circumstances of the shooting were undisputed. Finally, the jurors reasonably would expect that an individual who was shot and disabled, as Shahbakhti was, would experience anxiety. Thus, it is not reasonably probable that this brief reference to Shahbakhti's psychological injuries affected the verdicts or any findings made at the guilt phase.