Opinion ID: 1122547
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sems's testimony constituted admissible victim-impact evidence

Text: (36) Defendant's challenge to the trial court's admission of Diane Sems's testimony on the ground that her testimony constituted impermissible victim-impact evidence is misplaced. We previously have rejected the argument that Booth v. Maryland, supra, 482 U.S. 496, and South Carolina v. Gathers, supra, 490 U.S. 805, bar the introduction of evidence relating to the nature and circumstances of other criminal activity involving the use or threat of force or violence or the effect of such criminal activity on the victims.... ( People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 797 [276 Cal. Rptr. 827, 802 P.2d 330]; see also People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 832-837 [1 Cal. Rptr.2d 696, 819 P.2d 436].) The prosecution was entitled to present testimonial evidence of defendant's violent criminal activity. (§ 190.3, factor (b); People v. Belmontes (1988) 45 Cal.3d 744, 808-809 [248 Cal. Rptr. 126, 755 P.2d 310].) Moreover, the proscription against the use of victim-impact evidence at the sentencing stage largely has been overruled. ( Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808 [115 L.Ed.2d 720, 734-734, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 2608-2611]; see also People v. Thomas, supra, 2 Cal.4th 489, 535.) We therefore conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting Sems's testimony.