Opinion ID: 844212
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Effect of the Murder upon Family Members

Text: (18) Unless it invites a purely irrational response from the jury, the devastating effect of a capital crime on loved ones and the community is relevant and admissible as a circumstance of the crime under [Penal Code] section 190.3, factor (a).) ( People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 1056-1057 [47 Cal.Rptr.3d 467, 140 P.3d 775].) The United States Constitution bars victim impact evidence only if it is so unduly prejudicial as to render the trial fundamentally unfair. ( People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 258 [97 Cal.Rptr.3d 348, 212 P.3d 639], quoting Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808, 825 [115 L.Ed.2d 720, 111 S.Ct. 2597].) The testimony of Miller's parents about their own emotions following their son's death and the effect it had on their lives did not exceed acceptable limits. (19) Defendant complains, however, that America Miller impermissibly asserted the murder caused the death of her other son, Bobby. A family member may properly testify about the effect of a murder on another family member, and it is not required that the other family member had been present at the scene during or immediately after the crime. (See People v. Jurado (2006) 38 Cal.4th 72, 132 [41 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 131 P.3d 400] [victim's mother-in-law properly allowed to testify about the impact of the murder on the victim's daughter, and the victim's parents properly allowed to testify about the impact of the murder on their other children and grandchild]; People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 357 [30 Cal.Rptr.3d 513, 114 P.3d 758] [proper for the victim's sister to speak about the effect of the crime on the victim's daughters and on her own daughter].) Nevertheless, unless supported, a witness's statements that the defendant's crime caused or hastened the death of a third person are improper speculation. ( People v. Brady (2010) 50 Cal.4th 547, 577-578 [113 Cal.Rptr.3d 458, 236 P.3d 312] [improper for the victim's sister to testify that their mother had given up on life six months after the murder]; People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 197 [97 Cal.Rptr.3d 117, 211 P.3d 617] [trial court correctly told a witness it was improper to speculate that the victim's death may have contributed to the death of the victim's mother].) But here, America Miller's statement, even if improper speculation, could not have prejudiced defendant. Immediately after America Miller spoke about Bobby's death, the prosecutor asked if Bobby had died of heart problems and, after receiving an affirmative response, moved on to other topics. The prosecutor referred to the statement during closing argument, telling the jurors that even if America Miller believed the murder was a factor in the death of her second son, there was no evidence supporting such a belief and they should not consider the statement except as it showed the impact of the murder on her. [10] That the jury would have understood America Miller's statement to be an assertion of medical fact is highly improbable, particularly after the prosecutor's careful explanation. ( Brady, at p. 578.) Further, in light of the nature of the crime and the other aggravating factors, including defendant's criminal history, there is no reasonable possibility America Miller's statement affected the penalty verdict. (See People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 447-448 [250 Cal.Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135].)