Opinion ID: 1058965
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Alleged Victim Impact Evidence Admitted During Guilt Phase

Text: In assignments of error 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42, Muhammad makes various objections to the introduction of biographical information and backgrounds of various victims. Specifically, Muhammad objects to the trial court's admission of so-called `photographs in life' of various shooting victims and the admission of certain 911 calls, particularly that of Ted Franklin, husband of Linda Franklin. At trial, Muhammad did not object to the admission of the photographs in life of various victims. He did raise an objection to the Commonwealth's use of the photographs during opening statement, but did not object to the photographs when admitted. Also Muhammad did not object to the admission of the first three 911 tapes received in evidence regarding the shooting of Meyers and LaRuffa. These objections are not preserved. Rule 5:25. Three other 911 tapes were admitted into evidence. Muhammad objected to the tape related to Rashid's shooting as irrelevant. With regard to the tapes involving the shootings of Brown and Franklin, Muhammad objected that the tapes were irrelevant and cumulative. The trial court ruled that the tapes were very relevant ... and material evidence. Muhammad objected to the 911 tape of Franklin's husband as prejudicial. Upon consideration of the objection, the trial court ruled that the prejudicial impact was outweighed by its probative value. The trial court specifically noted that the tape was relevant to the issue of terror in the community. Muhammad objected to a question asked of Meyers' brother regarding Meyers' military service. The trial court sustained the objection. Every objection made by Muhammad to the testimony of Parker's sister was sustained. Muhammad did not make a contemporaneous objection to the testimony of Ballenger's sister; rather, he waited until her testimony was concluded. Any objection not raised contemporaneously is waived. Rule 5:25. To the extent that a continuing or renewed objection was made to the introduction of a photograph of Ballenger, the trial court did not err in admitting Exhibit 137A. Similarly, Muhammad's objection to the testimony of Ballenger's widower was not timely. An objection during the testimony of Walekar's daughter resulted in a direction from the trial court to limit the testimony to biographical information. The objection made by Muhammad to the testimony of Ramos' widower was sustained. Before Lewis-Rivera's widower testified, Muhammad objected to what he expected to be victim-impact testimony. The court instructed the Commonwealth concerning proper limitations upon the testimony and, when it was offered, there was no objection. Every objection to the testimony of Charlot's daughter, Franklin's daughter, and Johnson's widow was sustained. The record reveals that the trial court carefully limited the Commonwealth in the guilt phase to short biographical information about the victim and the manner in which the particular family member found out about the shooting. The testimony was not victim-impact testimony allowed in the penalty phase. It did not consist of evidence of economic or psychological loss, or grief. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in the admission of such evidence.