482 U.S. 496, 107 S. Ct. 2529, 96 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1987)
In 1983, John Booth and Willie Reid robbed and murdered Irvin Bronstein, age 78, and his wife Rose Bronstein, age 75, in their West Baltimore home.1 The couple was bound and gagged before being stabbed repeatedly with a kitchen knife.2 Booth, a neighbor of the Bronsteins, knew that the elderly victims could identify him.3 The bodies were discovered two days later by the Bronsteins' son.4
A jury convicted Booth of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery.5 The prosecution sought the death penalty, and Booth elected to have the jury determine his sentence.6 Prior to the sentencing phase, the State Division of Parole and Probation prepared a presentence report that included a victim impact statement as required by Maryland law.7 The victim impact statement was compiled from interviews with the Bronsteins' son, daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter.8
The victim impact statement described the personal characteristics of the victims and the emotional impact of the murders on their family members.9 The son, for example, said that he suffers from lack of sleep and depression, and is fearful for the first time in his life.10 The daughter said she also suffers from lack of sleep, and that since the murders she has become withdrawn and distrustful.11 The statement also included the family members' opinions that the victims were butchered like animals and that the perpetrators could never be rehabilitated.12 A Division of Parole and Probation official concluded that the murders remained a shocking and devastating memory that permeated the family's daily lives.13
Defense counsel moved to suppress the victim impact statement on the grounds that it was irrelevant and unduly inflammatory.14 The trial court denied the motion.15 Booth's lawyer then requested that the prosecutor simply read the VIS to the jury rather than call the family members to testify before the jury.16 The prosecutor agreed to this arrangement.17 The jury sentenced Booth to death for the murder of Mr. Bronstein and to life imprisonment for the murder of Mrs. Bronstein.18
The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentences.19 The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the case.20
Whether the Constitution prohibits a jury from considering a victim impact statement during the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial?21
The Eighth Amendment requires that a capital sentencing jury make an individualized determination based on the character of the defendant and the circumstances of the crime.22 A state may not introduce evidence that is irrelevant to the defendant's personal responsibility and moral guilt.23 Such evidence creates an unacceptable risk that the death penalty will be imposed in an arbitrary and capricious manner.24
Yes. The victim impact statement compiled from interviews with the Bronsteins' son, daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter described the personal characteristics of the victims and the emotional impact of the murders on their family members, including the son's lack of sleep and depression as well as the daughter's withdrawal and distrust.
The admission of this information therefore created a constitutionally unacceptable risk that the jury would impose the death sentence on the basis of arbitrary factors rather than a reasoned determination of Booth's blameworthiness.25
The Constitution prohibits a jury from considering a victim impact statement during the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial.26
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by The Chief Justice, Justice O'connor, And Justice Scalia
Justice White dissented on the ground that the legislature's judgment to allow victim impact statements deserves deference because the harm a murderer causes to the victim's family reflects on his blameworthiness.27 Many jurors will properly consider the full extent of that harm when deciding punishment.28 He maintained that nothing in the Constitution prevents states from including the particularized loss to the family as a sentencing consideration.29
The Court's concern about arbitrary distinctions based on family articulateness is a makeweight that ignores how evidence and argument inherently vary in every case.30
Joined by The Chief Justice, Justice White, And Justice O'connor
Justice Scalia dissented on the ground that the amount of harm a defendant causes bears directly on the extent of his personal responsibility.31 This principle is already accepted in both noncapital and capital cases where eligibility for death can turn on consequences the defendant did not specifically intend.32 He argued that the majority's premise that capital punishment must rest solely on moral guilt finds no support in the Constitution, history, or precedent.33
Allowing victim impact statements simply permits both sides of the sentencing debate to be heard rather than muting one side.34