Opinion ID: 867207
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Victim and witness impact evidence

Text: ¶ 42 Nelson also contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct by discussing the impact of Amber's death on her family and other witnesses. In Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991), the Supreme Court held that a court may, consistent with the Eighth Amendment, permit admission of evidence about the victim and about the impact of the murder on the victim's family in a capital trial because it is relevant to the jury's decision as to whether or not the death penalty should be imposed. The Court noted that there is nothing unfair about allowing the jury to bear in mind [the] harm [caused by the defendant] at the same time as it considers the mitigating evidence introduced by the defendant. Id. at 826, 111 S.Ct. 2597. ¶ 43 Although the State did not present victim impact evidence during the penalty phase, Amber's brother Wade testified in the guilt phase, and Nelson presented a video-taped interview of Amber's mother during the penalty phase. The prosecutor's arguments referred solely to this testimony. Statements referring to the victim's family members are not improper under Payne if they are supported by the evidence, even if victim impact evidence was not presented in the penalty phase. See Williams v. State, 684 So.2d 1179, 1204 (Miss.1996); see also People v. Dykes, 46 Cal.4th 731, 95 Cal. Rptr.3d 78, 209 P.3d 1, 49-50 (2009) (In closing argument, a prosecutor may rely upon the impact of the victim's death on his or her family.). Such arguments are proper as long as emotion does not reign over reason. Dykes, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 78, 209 P.3d at 50 (internal quotation omitted). ¶ 44 The prosecutor also discussed the impact of viewing Amber's body on several witnesses. Arguments aimed solely at the jury's emotions are improper. See State v. Herrera, 174 Ariz. 387, 396, 850 P.2d 100, 109 (1993). Here, the trial court recognized argument about how the viewing of Amber's body affected certain witnesses was improper. ¶ 45 Any error, however, was cured by the trial judge, who sustained a defense objection to the argument and instructed the jury to not consider the argument. We presume jurors follow their instructions. State v. Tucker, 215 Ariz. 298, 319 ¶ 89, 160 P.3d 177, 198. ¶ 46 Moreover, the improper argument took up less than one page out of more than twenty pages of transcript in the State's closing argument. After the limiting instruction, the prosecutor did not continue the improper line of argument but focused instead on the mitigation evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial.