Opinion ID: 2301860
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Direct Examination of Appellant's Mother

Text: During the penalty phase, appellant's mother testified for appellant. During her direct examination, the following occurred: [Appellant's counsel]: What do you think about what [appellant] did in this case? [Commonwealth]: Your Honor, I'm going to object. THE COURT: Sustained. [Appellant's counsel]: How does it make you feel that two of your children have been convicted of murder? [Appellant's Mother]: I'm crazy. I feel like the worst person in the whole world. [Appellant's counsel]: Why? [Commonwealth]: I'm going to object. Again, personal opinion. THE COURT: Defense? [Appellant's counsel]: It's the penalty phase. I'm just trying to elicit as much as I can so the Jury has a flavor for what we're looking at here. THE COURT: Sustain the objection. N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 11/16/09, at 79-80. Appellant claims the trial court erred in sustaining this objection because he, as a capital defendant, was entitled to present all relevant evidence in mitigation, including his mother's testimony. The Commonwealth responds this evidence was inadmissible third party impact testimony, which was irrelevant to appellant's character, record, or circumstances. The trial court found appellant sought his mother's personal opinions as to what she thought about his actions and how those actions affected her. The trial court allowed appellant's mother to testify factually, but not assert her personal opinion. We will not reverse a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence absent an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Rios, 591 Pa. 583, 920 A.2d 790, 819 (2007). A capital defendant may offer, as mitigating evidence, [a]ny other evidence of mitigation concerning the character and record of the defendant and the circumstances of his offense. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(8). However, appellant's mother's testimony as to how she felt regarding her sons being murderers is irrelevant to appellant's character or record or the circumstances of his offense. Thus, it is not relevant to Pennsylvania's capital sentencing statute. See, e.g., Montalvo, at 98-99 (quoting Powell, at 426-27) (concluding, as mercy is irrelevant to defendant's character, record, or circumstances of offense, trial court properly excluded four witnesses who would have merely asked jury to spare defendant's life); Bomar, at 852 (holding witness's personal views on death penalty irrelevant to capital sentencing, as it is not evidence concerning defendant's character, record, or circumstances of his offense); Commonwealth v. Harris, 572 Pa. 489, 817 A.2d 1033, 1054 (2002) ([T]estimony concerning the impact [of the offense] on third parties had no bearing on appellant's character or record or the circumstances of the offense.). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting appellant's mother from offering irrelevant testimony regarding how appellant's offense affected her.