Opinion ID: 778660
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Characterization of the defendants and their crime

Text: 58 Appellants also argue that portions of the victim impact testimony impermissibly characterized the Appellants and their crime. In Booth, the Supreme Court held inadmissible victim impact testimony which set[s] forth the family members' opinions and characterizations of the crimes and defendant[s]. 482 U.S. at 508-09, 107 S.Ct. at 2535-36. The Court reasoned that the formal presentation of [family members' opinions and characterization of the crime] can serve no other purpose than to inflame the jury and divert it from deciding the case on relevant evidence concerning the crime and the defendant. Id. This portion of the holding in Booth was not overruled by the Supreme Court in Payne. See Payne, 501 U.S. at 830 n. 2, 111 S.Ct. at 2611. 59 In her written statement to the jury, Stacie Bagley's mother directed the following statement to the Appellants: I'm sorry for you, for your heart to be so hard, you couldn't even see the innocence of the two you've killed. Stacie Bagley's father testified: 60 I truly believe that on June 21st, 1999, our children were tragically and recklessly stolen from us. There was no profit to be gained, no angry exchange, it was just a useless act of violence and a total disregard of life. Stacie and Todd saw a chance to witness to two young people placing themselves in harm's way. 61 These statements characterize the Appellants, and offer opinions about the nature of their crime. We are bound by Booth to find such evidence inadmissible. Furthermore, the error in admitting such testimony was plain. However, Appellants have not demonstrated that the error affected their substantial rights. These brief statements did not alone unduly prejudice the jury. Cf. Payne, 501 U.S. at 832, 111 S.Ct. at 2612 ([S]urely this brief statement did not inflame [the jury's] passions more than did the facts of the crime ....) (O'CONNOR, J., concurring). Furthermore, any prejudice that did result from the statements was mitigated by the district court's instructions to the jurors not to be swayed by passion, prejudice or sympathy. We reiterate that we presume that the jury followed its instructions. U.S. v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1391 (5th Cir.1995). Taken in context, this inadmissible portion of the victim impact testimony was short and mild compared to the horror of the crimes and the pathos of the admissible impact on the parents.