Opinion ID: 2543605
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Mr. Sookdeo's Victim Impact Statement

Text: Abdool's next argues that portions of Mr. Sookdeo's victim impact statement should not have been read to the jury. Specifically, Abdool objects to the following passage wherein Mr. Sookdeo expressed his concerns about his son: When I think about the agony this has caused me, it pales in comparison to the pain this has caused my son. Amelia had never been away from her brother Andrew. Andrew is two years younger. He lovedhe looked up to his big sister and did everything with her. She drove him to school and she inspired him. He called her sister. Now I see him burning inside as he holds angeras he holds his anger deep inside and I fear for the day when it will come out, and I fear losing my son, my only son, to this anger, pain, and remorse that can never be taken from him. That is morethat is one more future I cannot afford to lose. Abdool maintains that this passage was inflammatory and denied him due process and a fair proceeding. We review this claim for an abuse of discretion. See Schoenwetter v. State, 931 So.2d 857, 869 (Fla.2006). Section 921.141(7), Florida Statutes (2008), provides: Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the existence of one or more aggravating circumstances as described in subsection (5), the prosecution may introduce, and subsequently argue, victim impact evidence to the jury. Such evidence shall be designed to demonstrate the victim's uniqueness as an individual human being and the resultant loss to the community's members by the victim's death. Characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence shall not be permitted as a part of victim impact evidence. In sum, victim impact evidence is permissible, but is to be limited to the victim's uniqueness and the loss to the community caused by the victim's death. Kormondy v. State, 845 So.2d 41, 54 (Fla.2003). Here, Mr. Sookdeo's testimony was limited to the impact Amelia's death had on him and his son. Specifically, in a mere six-sentence account, Mr. Sookdeo described the close relationship between his son and daughter and how angry his son had become since her death. Mr. Sookdeo's testimony about his fear over anger and pain consuming his son is directly related to the impact Amelia's death had on her family. Further, Mr. Sookdeo did not offer any opinion about the crime, the defendant, or the appropriate sentence. Therefore, we hold that admitting Mr. Sookdeo's victim impact evidence was not error. See Wheeler v. State, 4 So.3d 599, 608 (Fla.2009) (finding no error where victim impact evidence explained how the victim's death caused a loss to his family members and community), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 178, 175 L.Ed.2d 112 (2009); Franklin v. State, 965 So.2d 79, 97-98 (Fla.2007) (finding no error in admitting victim impact evidence establishing that the victim took over the role of father at age eighteen and that his family was devastated by his loss). Accordingly, we reject this claim.