Opinion ID: 1721671
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: was the jury's sentencing determination predicated on the constant interjection of the character of the victim and her family?

Text: Shell claims that the jury's sentence was based at least in part on character traits of the victim, which are not appropriate for the jury to consider during the sentencing phase. Shell bases his claim on the authority of Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), in which the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the use of victim impact statements during sentencing of criminal defendants in capital murder trials. See also, South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 2207, 104 L.Ed.2d 876 (1989). The statements at issue in this case addressed Ms. Johnson's housekeeping habits and cannot in any way be characterized as victim impact statements. The proof was offered to support the State's proof of an attempted robbery and as such were admissible. Initially, it should again be noted that no contemporaneous objection was made to any of this so-called objectionable testimony. The State urges that the point is therefore not preserved for appeal. Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d 1346, 1354 (Miss. 1987); Booker v. State, 511 So.2d 1329, 1331 (Miss. 1987). Shell also cites Fuselier v. State, 468 So.2d 45 (Miss. 1985), as support for his claim. That case addressed the prejudicial effect of having a member of the victim's family seated near the prosecutor's table, and had nothing to do with victim impact testimony. Therefore, it offers no benefit to Shell. This testimony in no way resembles the victim impact testimony at issue in Booth, supra . In Booth, family and friends testified about the victim's personal characteristics, the emotional effect of the crimes on the victim's family, and the family's opinions of the crimes and the defendant. A footnote in Booth provides some insight into the difference between that case and this one. Our disapproval of victim impact statements at the sentencing phase of a capital case does not mean, however, that this type of information will never be relevant in any context. Similar types of information may well be admissible because they relate directly to the circumstances of the crime. See fn. 16, 482 U.S. at 507, 107 S.Ct. at 2535, 96 L.Ed.2d at 451. In the opinion of this Court, the testimony at issue here cannot be accurately characterized as victim impact testimony. As a consequence, there is no merit to this assignment of error.