Opinion ID: 2070572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony by the Family Members of the Victims

Text: Prior to the People's case, defendant moved to limit the testimony of some of the victims' family members. [16] The People submitted that their testimony would focus mainly on the identification of the victims. Nevertheless, Detria Davis, Rosalyn Harris and Moses Sims supplied personal details about the murder victims and their families. The admission of this type of evidence is problematic. We have long held that testimony about victims' personal backgrounds that is immaterial to any issue at trial should be excluded ( see People v Miller, 6 NY2d 152; People v Caruso, 246 NY 437). The testimony here is indistinguishable from that in Miller and Caruso. Although family information about a victim is an important aspect of the victim's life, generally, it has no bearing on defendant's guilt or innocence. We are not unmindful of a prosecutor's desire to convey to the jury the seriousness of the loss of a life. However, our case law is clear that testimony of this type should not be used for that purpose. After all the victims' family members had testified, defendant moved unsuccessfully to strike that testimony insofar as it went beyond identification of the victims. Defendant now contends that the admission of this testimony violated his rights to a fair trial and due process. However, by not objecting earlier, defendant deprived the trial court of the opportunity to avoid the error ( see People v Luperon, 85 NY2d 71, 77-78). Thus, the constitutional claims are arguably unpreserved. To the extent that defendant's claims may be preserved, we conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237). [17]