Opinion ID: 4427271
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Victim impact evidence properly admitted

Text: Wood claims the circuit court abused its discretion by overruling his objection to the state's penalty phase evidence regarding the effect of Hailey's murder on the Springfield community and allowing the state to question witnesses in a manner intended to elicit emotional responses. Specifically, Wood challenges testimony that more than 10,000 people attended a vigil for Hailey, Hailey's murder changed Springfield from a town to a city, and countless parents indicated they feared for their children's safety. Victim impact evidence is admissible under the United States and Missouri Constitutions. State v. Driskill, 459 S.W.3d 412, 431 (Mo. banc 2015). The state is permitted to show the victims are individuals whose deaths represent a unique loss to society and to their family and that the victims are not simply faceless strangers. Id. Further, § 565.030.4 provides penalty phase evidence may include, within the discretion of the court, evidence concerning the murder victim and the impact of the offense upon the family of the victim and others. Victim impact evidence violates the constitution if it is 14 so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair. Driskill, 459 S.W.3d at 431. (internal quotation omitted). The testimony regarding the vigil was relevant to show Hailey's murder resulted in a unique loss to society and she was not simply a faceless stranger[.] Id. Similarly, the testimony that Hailey's murder changed Springfield from a town to a city and parents now feared for the children's safety was relevant to the impact of the offense on the family of the victim and others. Section 565.030.4 (emphasis added). 8 There is no specific constitutional limitation on the consideration of community impact, and § 565.030.4 broadly and expressly authorizes evidence of the impact on others. Finally, Wood's argument that the state's questioning was aimed solely at eliciting emotional responses fails because a defendant is not necessarily prejudiced by the fact some jurors or audience members in a murder trial exhibited emotional responses to admissible evidence. The circuit court considered the fact some jurors and an audience member wept, but concluded it was simply an emotional response to the testimony which again I would put in the category of being natural. Nothing disruptive about it to anyone. In other words, the argument was emotionally charged because the facts of this case are inherently emotionally charged. State v. McFadden, 391 S.W.3d 408, 425 (Mo. banc 2013). The evidence reflected the brutal facts of the case, and jurors and audience members 8 Wood asserts the pastor's testimony regarding what parents told him was inadmissible hearsay. To properly preserve an issue for an appeal, a timely objection must be made during trial. State v. McFadden, 369 S.W.3d 727, 740 (Mo. banc 2012) (internal quotation omitted). Wood did not preserve a hearsay argument because he did not make a specific hearsay objection to the pastor's testimony. 15 cannot be expected to share Wood's stoicism. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Wood's objection to the penalty phase victim impact evidence.