Opinion ID: 2508525
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sustaining Objection to Defendant's Mother's Remark

Text: At the penalty phase, the defense called defendant's mother, Barbara Vieira, to testify on his behalf. Toward the end of defense counsel's direct examination, he asked her: What would [your son's] death do to you? She replied: His death would destroy me. The prosecution moved to strike her remark and the trial court sustained the motion. Defendant now claims the trial court in so doing committed prejudicial error and violated defendant's Eighth Amendment right to present mitigating evidence. A statement about how a defendant's death would make the family member suffer is not relevant to an individualized determination of defendant's culpability and may be properly excluded. ( People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 546, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 751, 905 P.2d 420.) As we stated in Sanders: The specific questions whether family members would prefer that defendant not be executed or believe that a death sentence will stigmatize them are not, however, strictly relevant to the defendant's character, record or individual personality. ( Ibid. ) As we further clarified in People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 456, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442: A defendant may offer evidence that he or she is loved by family members or others, and that these individuals want him or her to live. But this evidence is relevant because it constitutes indirect evidence of the defendant's character. The jury must decide whether the defendant deserves to die, not whether the defendant's family deserves to suffer the pain of having a family member executed. In the present case, Barbara Vieira's statement went beyond the expression of her desire that defendant be spared the death penalty, which would have been permissible character evidence, and spoke directly of the impact the execution would have on her. Although the question is close, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking her testimony. Moreover, even if it was error, the error was harmless. It is evident that Barbara Vieira communicated to the jury, by the whole of her testimony, that she loved and valued her son and that his crimes were the result of his association with Cruz and his followers. Her statement that his death would destroy her would not have significantly added to the jury's picture of defendant's character. (See People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 194, 246 Cal.Rptr. 673, 753 P.2d 629.)