NCJ Number
145367
Journal
Louisiana Law Review Volume: 52 Issue: 5 Dated: (May 1992) Pages: 1299-1310
Date Published
1992
Length
12 pages
Annotation
The author analyzes Payne v. Tennessee in terms of the use of victim impact evidence in capital cases.
Abstract
Payne had brutally attacked a 28-year-old woman, her daughter, and her son. Only the son survived. Payne was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder; at sentencing, the prosecutor and a relative of the victims gave testimony about the continuing effects on the son. The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that the testimony did not create a risk of arbitrary imposition of the death penalty; further, that the prosecutor's argument was relevant to the defendant's personal responsibility and moral guilt. Until this case, "victim impact" evidence had been held inadmissible at the sentencing phase of a capital trial. The US Supreme Court upheld the State court's decision. The author argues that only the heinousness of the crime itself, and not the character or situation of the victim (which in some cases could work to the victim's disadvantage) should be considered in determining capital sentences. 68 footnotes