Opinion ID: 1205096
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Booth-Gathers Error

Text: (43) First, defendant contends that the prosecutor impermissibly urged the jury to impose a death sentence based on the characteristics of the victim and the loss suffered by the victim's family, citing Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S. 496 [96 L.Ed.2d 440, 107 S.Ct. 2529] and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989) 490 U.S. 805 [104 L.Ed.2d 876, 109 S.Ct. 2207]. Referring to the testimony of defendant's mother on his behalf, the prosecutor said, [B]efore you give [ sic ] undue love of a mother for her son, then you may want to listen to that tape of July 7th again so you can be reminded of the love that a daughter had for her mother.... [ถ] [W]e have to think about the resident who [ sic ] he killed and the family who [ sic ] the perpetrator orphaned. The tape recording to which the prosecutor referred consisted of Angela Womble's interview with Detective Shipp, in which Angela, weeping, said, I want to finish this, because I want this to stick in court. I want them to pay for what they done to my family. During the pendency of this appeal, both Booth v. Maryland, supra, 482 U.S. 496 and South Carolina v. Gathers, supra, 490 U.S. 805 were largely overruled. ( Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. ___ [115 L.Ed.2d 720, 111 S.Ct. 2597].) We have since held that the injury inflicted by the defendant โ including the impact of the crime on the family of the victim โ is one of the circumstances of the crime, evidence of which is admissible under section 190.3, factor (a). (See generally People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 833-836 [1 Cal. Rptr.2d 696, 819 P.2d 436].) However, as defendant points out, Payne did not address Booth 's holding that admission of a victim's family member's characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence violates the Eighth Amendment; as the high court noted, no such evidence was presented in Payne. ( Payne v. Tennessee, supra, 501 U.S. at p. ___ [115 L.Ed.2d 720 at p. 739, fn. 2].) Defendant argues that Angela Womble's statement and the prosecutor's brief reference to it are of the type of evidence and comment forbidden by the viable portion of Booth. We disagree. Angela expressed no characterization or opinion of the crime, the defendant, or the appropriate sentence; she merely expressed the desire that the perpetrators pay for their wrongdoing. (See People v. Mitcham (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1062 [5 Cal. Rptr.2d 230, 824 P.2d 1277] [assessment of, and reaction to, the crime from the victim's standpoint is highly relevant to consideration of the circumstances of the crime].) Even if the comments were in some way improper, we do not believe they could have had any appreciable effect on the jury's determination, in light of the callousness of defendant's crime.