Opinion ID: 2345444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Cameron's Law Testimony

Text: While giving his victim impact statement, Hamelin's father, Vandrick Hamelin, Sr., testified how he and his family were trying to cope with Hamelin's death: [B]ut since Cameron['s death] we have turned the negative into a positive. Our family has worked hard down at the Dover Legislation Hall to pass a law in Cameron's name ... .... [which] stiffens the penalties for convicted gun felons who continue to commit crimes with guns. So, we are trying to curb the gun violence here in Wilmington, and we hope that no one else would lose their [sic] life to gun violence here in Wilmington with this new law. I mean, I really do hope this law do [sic] make criminals think about committing crimes because they don't know the devastation that it causes families and some people, you know, they hold pictures of their child or little ones and fail to realize they're killing other peoples' children in the process. Johnson acknowledges he made no objection to the now challenged testimony. Johnson, therefore, has waived the claim on appeal, unless the error was plain. [94] Again, we note that the burden of establishing plain error is on the defendant. [95] Delaware law provides that victim impact evidence is relevant to the sentencing authority. [96] The United States Supreme Court holds that victim impact statements do not violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and serve a legitimate purpose in determining sentencing. [97] In Payne v. Tennessee , the Supreme Court specifically recognized the relevance of victim impact evidence that relates to a family's efforts to cope with the loss occasioned by the victim's death. [98] The State argues that the testimony now challenged by Johnson was nothing more than three sentences that explained how the Hamelin family was coping with the tragic and unnecessary death of Cameron. Johnson argues that the jury was being invited (consciously or unconsciously) to join their verdict to Vandrick Hamelin's legislative effort and ... advised, in so many words, that giving Johnson the death penalty would send a message of public support to the Delaware legislature to help redeem Cameron's death with `Cameron's Law.' Johnson's assertions are not supported by the record. The only family members who presented victim impact testimony were Vandrick Hamelin, Sr., and Jr., Hamelin's father and brother. The testimony by Hamelin's father was limited and not overly emotional. [99] The jurors were instructed that they must not be swayed by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, or public opinion during their deliberations during the penalty phase. Juries are presumed to follow the trial judge's instructions, and cautionary instructions are presumed to prevent any error. [100] The trial judge, in her sentencing decision, did not mention the family's legislative efforts. [101] Johnson has not carried his burden of showing plain error. [102]