Opinion ID: 1281413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Impact of Crime on Victim's Family

Text: The prosecutor argued to the jury that in murdering the victim, defendant showed no concern for human life or for Kathy Orozco or David Lee Orozco's sons when he committed that act. Pointing out that he could not have known whether the victim even had a family at the time of the shooting, defendant argues that such was an improper reference to the impact of the crime on the victim's family and thus prejudicial misconduct. (47) The comment was arguably inappropriate under the recent decision in Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S. 496 [96 L.Ed.2d 440, 107 S.Ct. 2529] barring admission of victims' impact statements at the penalty phase of capital cases. Although Booth is factually distinguishable, we nevertheless conclude beyond a reasonable doubt, as we did in People v. Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pages 771-772, that the very brief comment here had no effect on the penalty verdict. Unlike Booth, where the jury was given lengthy and specific details regarding the actual impact on the victim's family, here the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor's comments was undoubtedly minimal or nonexistent. ( Ghent, supra, at p. 772, italics in original.)