Opinion ID: 844274
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rodriguez's Victim Impact Testimony

Text: Defendant also argues the court erred in failing to limit victim impact evidence to the capital offense against Lao. He claims his state and federal constitutional rights were violated by admission of testimony concerning the effects of his assault on Benita Rodriguez. (40) Initially, we note that defense counsel's failure to object to the victim impact testimony from Rodriquez forfeits the claim on appeal. ( People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 625-626 [268 Cal.Rptr. 399, 789 P.2d 127]; see People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 186 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150].) In any event, we have repeatedly held that the admission of evidence about the impacts of a capital defendant's other violent criminal activity does not violate the state or federal Constitutions. (E.g., People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 479 [3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610]; People v. Clark, at pp. 628-629; People v. Karis, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 641.) The circumstances of uncharged violent crimes, including the impact on victims of those crimes, are made expressly admissible by section 190.3, factor (b). ( People v. Bramit (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1221, 1241 [96 Cal.Rptr.3d 574, 210 P.3d 1171].) Defendant acknowledges our prior decisions but urges us to reconsider the issue based on opinions from other states. ( People v. Hope (1998) 184 Ill.2d 39, 49-53 [234 Ill.Dec. 379, 702 N.E.2d 1282]; Sherman v. State (1998) 114 Nev. 998, 1012-1014 [965 P.2d 903, 914]; State v. Nesbit (Tenn. 1998) 978 S.W.2d 872, 891, fn. 11.) We recently considered these out-of-state cases and concluded they do not support a claim that the admission of victim impact evidence regarding prior crimes violates the federal Constitution. ( People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 618 [94 Cal.Rptr.3d 322, 208 P.3d 78].) Moreover, the cases upon which defendant relies are not binding on this court, which has repeatedly held that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the admission of testimony by a defendant's prior victims concerning the impact of his violent crimes against them. [Citations.] ( Ibid. ) Because defendant offers no compelling reason to depart from our settled views, we conclude the trial court did not err in admitting evidence about the effects of defendant's assault on Rodriguez.