Opinion ID: 1759877
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Victim Impact Evidence Guilt Phase

Text: ¶ 80. On appeal, Scott argues that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to admit what Scott alleges to be victim impact evidence from Lurline's testimony during the guilt phase. Scott contends that the testimony was irrelevant and inadmissible during the guilt phase. Scott focuses only on the following testimony from Lurline on direct examination by the State: State: And, Mrs. Lee, you live where? Lurline: 305 Lee Street, Boyle, Mississippi. State: And for how long have you lived there? Lurline: Seven years. State: And who bought that house? Lurline: My husband and I. State: And that would be who? Lurline: Richard Lee, the deceased. State: Mrs. Lee, how long were you and Richard Lee married? Lurline: Almost 52 years, lacking a month and four days. State: And was he employed? Lurline: He had been retired for about 10 or 11 years. State: I call your attention to 1995 on November 15. Were you living, you and Richard, in that house in Boyle at that time? Lurline: Yes, we were. State: And you and he were retired. Can you tell us what you did, if anything, or what kind of activities you were engaged in? Lurline: Fishing and hunting. State: Enjoying retirement? Lurline: Enjoying retirement. State: And on this particular day, can you tell us if there was anything that you particularly were going to be doing? Lurline: Yes. Richard went to town for last-minute shopping before we would go to my daughter, Sandra Dixon's house, and we were going to deer hunt. We had a camp there. ¶ 81. The trial record reflects that during the testimony solicited by the State from Lurline the defense did not object to any question or any of the testimony. Furthermore, as Scott did not raise any objection at trial to the line of questioning or testimony, this Court finds that this issue is now procedurally barred from being raised for the first time on appeal. See Williams v. State, 684 So.2d at 1203 (contemporaneous objection rule is applicable in death penalty cases). Alternatively, without waiving any procedural bar, the State argues the testimony was not victim impact testimony. See Crawford v. State, 716 So.2d 1028, 1046 (Miss.1998) (overruled on other grounds) (Victim impact statements are those which describe the victim's personal characteristics, the emotional effect of the crimes on the victim's family, and the family's opinion of the crimes and the defendant.). The State contends that Lurline's testimony was that of one of the victim's regarding the circumstances of the crime: (1) the location of the home; (2) the fact that they were retired and were at home; and (3) the purpose of Lee's trip to town that day. The testimony pinpointed the location of the crime, the witness's relationship to the victim, why the witness was at the location of the crime and the actions of the victim the day of the crime. ¶ 82. This Court finds that the testimony was not victim impact testimony. Lurline's testimony was presented as a witness and a victim of the charged crimes. Her testimony was solicited to explained the circumstances surrounding the crime and established guilt. Moreover, Scott's lack of objection in the record to contest the testimony from Lurline acts now to procedurally bar this issue on appeal.