Opinion ID: 1325306
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: The Sorrell Murders.

Text: During the penalty phase of the trial, Melvin Tucker testified that Gray told him he had knocked off Lisa Sorrell. According to Tucker, Gray made the statement as he pointed to a picture of Lisa Sorrell in a newspaper while searching for news articles concerning McClelland's murder. Over Gray's objection, the court permitted the Commonwealth to present additional evidence showing that two Sorrell murders actually had occurred. The police officer who had investigated the murders testified that he found the body of Lisa Sorrell slumped in the front passenger seat of a partially burned automobile in Chesapeake, a city that shares borders with Suffolk. In the trunk of the automobile was the body of Lisa's three-year-old child, Shanta Sorrell. The officer identified various photographs of the automobile and the victims. The photographs were admitted into evidence. A State medical examiner who had performed autopsies on the bodies of Lisa and Shanta Sorrell testified about the causes of their deaths. He opined that Lisa was killed by six gunshot wounds to the head, apparently inflicted by a .32-caliber firearm, and that Shanta died of carbon monoxide inhalation. Gray, testifying in the penalty phase, denied any involvement in the Sorrell murders. Gray contends on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the Sorrell murders. He argues that the evidence was highly inflammatory and inherently prejudicial. Gray points out that at the time of the trial he had not even been charged with the commission of these crimes. Gray says the only evidence linking him to these murders was the testimony of Melvin Tucker, the co-defendant with whom the Commonwealth had reached a plea bargain agreement. In the penalty phase of a bifurcated capital murder trial, it [is] desirable for the jury to have as much information before it as possible when it makes the sentencing decision. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 204, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2939, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). Consistent with Gregg, Code § 19.2-264.4(B) provides that the jury may consider evidence that includes the history and background of the defendant. Indeed, [t]he jury has the duty to consider all the evidence relevant to sentencing, both favorable and unfavorable before determining whether it is probable that the defendant would commit future acts of violence that would constitute a continuing, serious threat to society. Stamper, 220 Va. at 275-76, 257 S.E.2d at 819. [E]vidence of prior unadjudicated criminal conduct. . . may be used in the penalty phase to prove the defendant's propensity to commit criminal acts of violence in the future. Watkins, 229 Va. at 488, 331 S.E.2d at 436. See Quintana, 224 Va. at 147-48, 295 S.E.2d at 654. Determining the credibility of witnesses is peculiarly within the province of the jury. [8] Johnson, 224 Va. at 528, 298 S.E.2d at 101; Coppola, 220 Va. at 252, 257 S.E.2d at 803. Gray was connected to the Sorrell murders by the testimony of Melvin Tucker. The jury heard and observed both Tucker and Gray and apparently chose to believe Tucker. We cannot say Tucker's testimony was incredible as a matter of law. Moreover, the evidence of the police officer and the medical examiner indicated that the Sorrell murders were accomplished in a manner strikingly similar to the execution style of the McClelland murder. Lisa Sorrell also was shot six times in the head, and her automobile, like McClelland's, was burned after the murder. Thus, the officer's and doctor's evidence tended to corroborate Tucker's testimony of Gray's admission. Gray's admission and the information about the particulars of the Sorrell murders were relevant evidence of Gray's propensity to commit violent acts in the future. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court did not err in admitting this evidence.