Opinion ID: 2106660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Whether the Circuit Court Erroneously Admitted Certain Portions of a Victim Impact Statement Into Evidence

Text: Defendant argues next that he suffered irreparable harm from the introduction of a victim impact statement written and read by Susan Simenson, the widow of the victim. Defendant does not object to admission of the entire statement, only selected portions which, according to defendant, improperly characterized the crimes committed by defendant, and included an inappropriate recommendation of the type of sentence defendant should receive. We disagree. As explained below, Mrs. Simenson's statement complied with constitutional restrictions on the content of victim impact statements. Moreover, choosing as we do to dispose of this issue on its merits, we can forgo two additional questions raised in the parties' briefs, namely, whether defendant waived any objection to Mrs. Simenson's testimony, and whether defense counsel rendered ineffective legal assistance. The victim of a violent crime, including the spouse of a victim, may address the court regarding the impact which the criminal defendant's conduct has had upon the victim. 725 ILCS 120/3, 6 (West 1996). Admission of victim impact evidence does not violate the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 2609, 115 L.Ed.2d 720, 736 (1991). Victim impact evidence is consistent with our legal tradition of examining the harm caused by a crime in order to determine both the elements of a criminal offense and the appropriate punishment that should follow from that crime. Payne, 501 U.S. at 819, 820, 111 S.Ct. at 2605, 2606, 115 L.Ed.2d at 731, 732. Victim impact evidence is simply another form or method of informing the sentencing authority about the specific harm caused by the crime in question, evidence of a general type long considered by sentencing authorities. Payne, 501 U.S. at 825, 111 S.Ct. at 2608, 115 L.Ed.2d at 735. Further, allowing a jury to consider such evidence at the sentencing stage merely balances the State's interest in having the jury fully informed of the value of the life lost against the interest of the criminal defendant in having the jury informed of mitigating factors that weigh against execution. Payne, 501 U.S. at 822, 825, 111 S.Ct. at 2607, 2608, 115 L.Ed.2d at 733, 735. [A] State may properly conclude that for the jury to assess meaningfully the defendant's moral culpability and blameworthiness, it should have before it at the sentencing phase evidence of the specific harm caused by the defendant. Payne, 501 U.S. at 825, 111 S.Ct. at 2608, 115 L.Ed.2d at 735. In the case at bar, we find that the bulk of the statements to which defendant objects describe the impact the murder of Simenson had on his family, and thus fall squarely within the permissible range of victim impact evidence. In relevant part, Mrs. Simenson said: Now my husband is only a memory due to the selfish and violent actions of Gregory Shaw and Elton Williams. On that horrifying morning of September 28, 1994, my husband's life was reduced for $200 to piles of reports, court files and bags of evidence. Because of Gregory Shaw, Stephanie and Brandon have been deprived of their father. Just recently, I realized consciously, for the first time, that I now fall into that, quote, single parent category that I often thought belonged exclusively to divorced couples, which I consider to be a position of choice. Gregory Shaw and Elton Williams made that choice for me on September 28, 1994, when they decided to murder any person who opened the car trunk. Unfortunately that person was my husband. My children live in fear that when I leave the house something bad might happen to me. We all have nightmares. Stephanie's had nightmares and worries that these defendants will get out of prison and come and get us. He was a police officer for about 19 years. He received numerous awards and commendations. Tim was a true professional. Even drug dealers he helped convict came to Tim's wake and funeral out of respect for him. Tim didn't deserve to die. Just as all police officers do, Tim put his life on the line to protect the good and innocent members of society. He made the ultimate sacrifice. The impact of our last means of protection being annihilated on our streets is frightening to my family. Please renew our faith in the criminal justice system which will bring a phase of closure to this ongoing nightmare that fills our lives. We do not read the testimony quoted above as a request that the jury recommend that defendant be sentenced to death. In fact, substantially similar testimony by Mrs. Simenson was examined by this court in People v. Williams, 181 Ill.2d 297, 229 Ill.Dec. 898, 692 N.E.2d 1109 (1998), the direct appeal initiated by defendant's codefendant, Elton Williams. In that case, Williams insisted that, in the passage quoted below, Mrs. Simenson was improperly allowed to urge the jury to find Williams eligible for the death penalty. `My family and I are very confident that all of you will return a quick verdict which will send a message to my children, society, and the law enforcement community that we simply will not tolerate or accept our last means of protection being annihilated on our streets. Renew our faith in the criminal justice system and bring a phase of closure to this ongoing nightmare that fills our lives.    It hurts and upsets my family terribly to know I can never talk to Tim again and my children will never see their dad again. Elton Williams' attitude is a slap in the face to not only my family but to those-but to those of police officers as well.' Williams, 181 Ill.2d at 324, 229 Ill.Dec. 898, 692 N.E.2d 1109. This court did not construe the impact statement admitted in the Williams trial as recommending the death penalty to the jury. The court interpreted Mrs. Simenson's pleas for closure and a quick verdict as an appeal to bring an uncomfortable chapter in the life of her family to an end. Williams, 181 Ill.2d at 325, 229 Ill.Dec. 898, 692 N.E.2d 1109. Further, Mrs. Simenson did not intend to imply that failure to find Williams death-eligible would demonstrate a lack of support for the law enforcement community. Rather, the court read these remarks as being an expression of concern for the community at large. Williams, 181 Ill.2d at 325, 229 Ill.Dec. 898, 692 N.E.2d 1109. Likewise, in the instant case, we interpret Mrs. Simenson's statements as a request that the jury deliberate quickly to end a painful ordeal for her family, and not an improper suggestion of a sentence for defendant. Mrs. Simenson's description of her husband as an officer may also fairly be construed as her assessment of the loss to the community as a result of the defendant's acts. In Payne, 501 U.S. at 822, 111 S.Ct. at 2607, 115 L.Ed.2d at 733, the United States Supreme Court included loss to    society which has resulted from the defendant's homicide as an appropriate counterbalance to evidence adduced by a defendant in mitigation at the sentencing phase. Similarly, the only instance we find of characterizations of the crime by Mrs. Simenson is the phrase the selfish and violent actions of Gregory Shaw and Elton Williams. To the extent this phrase expresses the Simenson family's anger and sense of helplessness at the death of Officer Simenson, the phrase is consistent with the legislative purpose animating the victim impact statement statute. 725 ILCS 120/6 (West 1996). Any extra meaning that could be read into the phrase is, in our opinion, muted by the instruction given by the circuit court to the jurors not to allow sympathy, passion or prejudice to influence their deliberations.