Opinion ID: 2594480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Victim-impact questioning

Text: Defendant's mother, Lupe Gallegos, testified about defendant's difficult childhood. She also described her belief that the death of her first child and defendant's birth defect (a tumor on his neck) were God's punishment for [her] having children out of wedlock. Gallegos related that defendant had surgery for the tumor. Before the surgery, she had a priest baptize him, and she promised Blessed Martin de Porres that if defendant survived the surgery, she would dress him in a white outfit and take him to church every Sunday for a year. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Gallegos about the strong emotions she felt as a parent of someone who might die for his crimes. He then asked if she had thought about how the parents of the murder victims feel, and Gallegos answered that she had prayed for them. The prosecutor also questioned Gallegos about her belief that losses in her life were God's will, and he asked: You think it might be God's will that [defendant] pay for what he's done? Defendant objected before Gallegos could answer, but the objection was not directed to the questions about God's will; rather, it was directed to the prosecutor's previous question about the feelings of the victims' parents. The objection asserted that the prosecutor was eliciting inadmissible victim-impact evidence. The court agreed the questioning was improper under Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440, but rejected defendant's request for a mistrial. Instead, the court struck the question and the testimony relative to the impact on the victim's family and admonished the jury not to consider during deliberations the impact of defendant's crimes on the victim's families. Defendant now asserts prosecutorial misconduct based on inappropriate victim-impact questioning, and he claims the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial. Defendant's argument is without legal basis because the high court largely overruled Booth v. Maryland, supra, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440, in Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720, and under California law, a court may permit victim-impact evidence and argument in appropriate cases at the penalty phase of a capital trial to show the circumstances of the crime. ( People v. Kirkpatrick (1994) 7 Cal.4th 988, 1017, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 818, 874 P.2d 248.) Moreover, the prosecutor did not actually present victim-impact evidence. Rather, he asked defendant's mother if she had considered the feelings of the victims' families, which was relevant to help the jury evaluate the sincerity of the strong emotions she displayed while testifying. Defendant also argues the prosecutor, by asking Gallegos whether she thought it was God's will that defendant pay for what he's done, improperly appealed to religious authority as support for the death penalty. Defendant did not raise this objection at trial, and therefore he forfeited the issue. ( People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 208-209, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710.) Moreover, defendant brought into issue Gallegos's religious beliefs, eliciting during direct examination that she believed the death of her first child and defendant's tumor were God's will. If she would resign herself to the jury's verdict in the same way, then the jury might conclude that the impact of the verdict on her would be slight. At the time of defendant's trial, the law was unsettled as to the admissibility of evidence showing the impact a death verdict would have on the defendant's family. ( People v. Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 455, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442.) Because defendant raised the issue of Gallegos's religious beliefs as they pertained to the impact a death verdict would have on her, the prosecutor was entitled under the law as it then stood to inquire further into those questions. Though the prosecutor's specific question was clearly argumentative and, by implying that religious authority supported imposition of the death penalty, went beyond the bounds of what was appropriate ( People v. Sandoval (1992) 4 Cal.4th 155, 193-194, 14 Cal. Rptr.2d 342, 841 P.2d 862), we find no reasonable possibility that the jury would have reached [a] more favorable verdict[ ] had the misconduct not occurred. ( Id. at p. 194, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 342, 841 P.2d 862.)