Opinion ID: 2454804
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Penalty PhaseVictim Impact Testimony

Text: Deck asserts that the testimony of William Long, the son of the victims, exceeded the guidelines for victim impact evidence established by the United States Supreme Court in Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 825, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991), and that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a mistrial because of the resulting emotional reaction in the courtroom. The matter arose as part of the state's penalty phase testimony when William Long read a statement that the family had prepared. After his testimony, three members of the jury were crying, as were members of the Long family who were seated in the courtroom. Victim impact evidence is admissible under the United States and Missouri Constitutions. State v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577, 594 (Mo. banc 1997), cert. denied. ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 711, 139 L.Ed.2d 652 (1998). According to Payne, just as the defendant is entitled to present evidence in mitigation designed to show that the defendant is a uniquely individual human being, the State is also allowed to present evidence showing each victim's uniqueness as an individual human being. Payne, 501 U.S. at 822-23, 111 S.Ct. 2597. In particular, the State is permitted to show that 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. at 825, 111 S.Ct. 2597. Payne also holds that victim impact evidence violates the constitution only if it is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair. Id. Deck argues that the evidence in this case violated this standard and that the jury based its verdict on emotion. He does not, however, complain of the testimony itself, but of the emotional level in the courtroom and the effect it had on the jury. Although emotional outbursts are to be prevented insofar as possible, the trial court exercises broad discretion in determining the effect of such outbursts on the jury. State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479, 491 (Mo. banc 1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 2379, 141 L.Ed.2d 746 (1998). Additionally, this Court has held that [i]n determining whether to declare a mistrial, the trial court may consider the spontaneity of the outburst, whether the prosecution was at fault, whether something similar, or even worse, could occur on retrial, and the further conduct of the trial. Id. Deck does not point to specific instances in the record that indicate an extreme emotional level, and therefore, it is difficult to do otherwise than defer to the trial court's discretion. A review of the record does not reflect the extreme emotional level Deck describes. There were apparently no emotional outbursts among the family members, only some muted crying during the testimony of the Long children. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the family members would not have the same reaction on retrial. In the absence of evidence that emotional outbursts actually occurred, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Deck's motion for a mistrial.