Court Opinion

ID: 9764945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:45:02.681894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:15.921179
License: Public Domain

CARLEY, Presiding Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I completely and wholeheartedly agree with the majority’s finding of no reversible error in the guilt/innocence phase of Bryant’s trial and its affirmation of the judgment of conviction on all charges. However, I respectfully dissent to the reversal of the death sentence and the sentence of life without parole based upon the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce victim impact testimony in the sentencing phase.
To the contrary, I believe that the trial court meticulously complied with the mandates of the United States Supreme Court and this Court in making its determination. The majority recognizes that the controlling authority is Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808 (111 SC 2597, 115 LE2d 720) (1991). In Payne, the Supreme Court held that
[vjictim 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. . . . Courts have always taken into consideration the harm done by the defendant in imposing sentence, and the evidence adduced in this case was illustrative of the harm caused by [Bryant’s] double murder.
Payne v. Tennessee, supra at 824-825. Subsequent to Payne this Court found OCGA § 17-10-1.2 to be constitutional in light of the statutory safeguards. Livingston v. State, 264 Ga. 402, 404-405 (1) (c) (444 SE2d 748) (1994). Contrary to the conclusion reached by the majority, I do not believe that we can hold that the trial court abused its “unusually broad discretion” in allowing the victim impact *902evidence in this case. Livingston v. State, supra at 405 (1) (c). I believe that this Court should affirm the convictions and the sentences in their entirety. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Decided March 18, 2011.
Carl P. Greenberg, Gerald P. Word, Josh D. Moore, King & Spalding, Damien C. Moore, Victoria M. Calvert, William E. Hoffmann, Jr., Jessica J. Hagen, John W. Harbin, Brian Stull, Wyatt Feeler, for appellant.
David McDade, District Attorney, James A. Dooley, Susan V. Boleyn, Assistant District Attorneys, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Patricia Attaway Burton, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Theresa M. Schiefer, Assistant Attorney General, Emily R. Roselli, for appellee.