Opinion ID: 2378907
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failing to Object to Testimony about Taylor's Character

Text: During the guilt phase, Taylor's wife testified that Taylor was a minister who read and carried a Bible every day. Defense counsel did not object, and later impeached Ms. Taylor about her husband's lack of religious training. Shurn complains that this evidence as to Taylor's character is inadmissible under Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), and thus trial counsel should have objected to its admission. In Booth, the United States Supreme Court reversed a death sentence because the state introduced a victim impact statement (which summarized interviews with the victims' family and described the effect of the crime on the family). Id. at 498-99, 501-02, 107 S.Ct. at 2530-31, 2532-33. The Supreme Court later overruled Booth. Payne v. Tennessee, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991). Even assuming it applied to Shurn's trial, Booth does not prohibit the introduction of this evidence. Evidence of Taylor's alleged religious nature does not compare to the victim impact statement in Booth.