501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720
In June 1987 Pervis Tyrone Payne was convicted by a Tennessee jury on two counts of first-degree murder and one count of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree.1
The victims were twenty-eight-year-old Charisse Christopher, her two-year-old daughter Lacie, and her three-year-old son Nicholas, who survived multiple stab wounds.2 The three lived in an apartment in Millington, Tennessee, across the hall from Payne’s girlfriend Bobbie Thomas.3 On Saturday June 27 1987 Payne entered the Christophers’ apartment after visiting Thomas’s apartment several times, became violent when Charisse resisted his advances, and inflicted forty-two stab wounds on Charisse, multiple stab wounds on Lacie, and repeated stab wounds plus a slashed throat on Nicholas.4
Police arrived to find blood covering the walls and floor, Charisse and Lacie dead on the kitchen floor, and Nicholas still breathing.5 Payne was apprehended later that day hiding in the attic of the home of a former girlfriend.6 It was later determined that the blood stains matched the victims' blood types.7 A search of his pockets revealed a packet containing cocaine residue, a hypodermic syringe wrapper, and a cap from a hypodermic syringe.8 His overnight bag, containing a bloody white shirt, was found in a nearby dumpster.9 At trial Payne testified that another man had committed the crimes and that he had only tried to help the victims, but the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts.10
During the sentencing phase the State called Charisse’s mother Mary Zvolanek, who testified that Nicholas cried for his mother and sister, asked whether she missed Lacie, and did not understand why they did not come home.11 A probation officer’s victim impact statement describing the family’s devastation and Nicholas’s nightmares was also introduced.12 In closing argument the prosecutor emphasized that Nicholas had witnessed the murders, would grow up knowing what happened, and would want to know what justice had been done, while also noting that Lacie would never attend a high school prom and that Charisse would never again sing a lullaby to her son.13
Payne presented four mitigation witnesses: his parents, who stated he had no prior criminal record and no history of alcohol or drug abuse; Bobbie Thomas, who described him as caring and good with her children; and a clinical psychologist, who testified that Payne was mentally handicapped, polite, and neither psychotic nor schizophrenic.14 The jury sentenced Payne to death on each murder count and to thirty years in prison for the assault.15
The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences.16 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to reconsider its prior holdings concerning the admission of victim impact evidence at capital sentencing proceedings.17
Whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits a capital sentencing jury from considering victim impact evidence relating to a victim’s personal characteristics and the emotional impact of the murder on the victim’s family?18
The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a capital sentencing jury from considering victim impact evidence relating to a victim’s personal characteristics and the emotional impact of the murder on the victim’s family.19
Yes. The assessment of harm caused by a defendant as a result of a crime has long been an important concern of the criminal law in determining both the elements of the offense and the appropriate punishment.20 Victim impact evidence is simply another form or method of informing the sentencer about the specific harm caused by the crime.21
In this case the State introduced the testimony of Mary Zvolanek who described how Nicholas missed his mother and sister and cried for them.22 The prosecutor commented on the continuing effects of the crimes on the family and the little boy.23 The jury sentenced Payne to death on each of the murder counts after hearing this evidence.24 The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, concluding that any violation of Payne's rights under Booth and Gathers was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.25
The Booth Court’s view that the defendant’s personal responsibility and moral guilt are the only relevant considerations conflicts with the principle that punishment should be directly related to the personal culpability of the defendant which includes the harm caused.26 The facts of this case illustrate that the defendant’s actions had a particularly devastating impact on the family as Nicholas survived the attack.27
The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the admission of victim impact evidence at a capital sentencing hearing.28
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by White, Kennedy
Justice O’Connor joined the Court’s opinion.29 She emphasized that a State may legitimately determine that victim impact evidence is relevant to a capital sentencing proceeding.30 A State may decide that the jury should know the full extent of the harm caused by the crime, including its impact on the victim’s family and community.31
She noted that the evidence in this case was not unduly prejudicial.32 Trial courts routinely exclude evidence that is unduly inflammatory, and appellate courts review for prejudice where such evidence is admitted.33
Joined by O’connor, Kennedy
Justice Scalia joined the Court’s opinion.34 He argued that the Booth and Gathers decisions were an unwarranted extension of the Eighth Amendment that had no basis in constitutional text, historical practice, or logic.35 The Amendment permits the People to decide what is a crime and what constitutes aggravation and mitigation of a crime.36
He noted that the doctrine of stare decisis does not require adherence to a precedent that significantly harms the criminal justice system and is egregiously wrong.37 The response to the defense of stare decisis can be found in Justice Marshall's own writings that the doctrine is not an imprisonment of reason.
Joined by Kennedy
Justice Souter joined by Justice Kennedy concurred that Booth and Gathers were wrongly decided.38 He explained that evidence about the victim and survivors has direct moral relevance because the foreseeable consequences of murder include harm to survivors.39 The defendant’s choice to kill relates to a whole human being and threatens an association of others who may be distinctly hurt.40
He concluded that nothing in the Eighth Amendment requires exclusion of such evidence and that the standard in Booth is unworkable in practice.41
Joined by Blackmun
Justice Marshall dissented.42 He argued that the Court today overrules two important precedents that protected the constitutional rights of capital defendants.43 Booth and Gathers correctly held that victim impact evidence is irrelevant to the capital sentencing decision and that its admission creates an unacceptable risk of arbitrary and capricious sentencing.44
He would adhere to stare decisis.45 The majority’s approach signals that many established constitutional liberties are now open to reconsideration based solely on changes in Court personnel.46
Joined by Blackmun
Justice Stevens dissented.47 He stated that the majority’s decision to overrule Booth and Gathers is not supported by the Eighth Amendment or by this Court’s capital sentencing jurisprudence.48 The introduction of victim impact evidence allows the jury to make its decision on the basis of emotion rather than reason.49
It creates an unacceptable risk that the death penalty will be imposed in an arbitrary and capricious manner.50 He would reverse the judgment of the Tennessee Supreme Court.51
Whether Booth v. Maryland and South Carolina v. Gathers should be overruled?52
Booth v. Maryland and South Carolina v. Gathers were wrongly decided and should be overruled because they rested on two premises that are inconsistent with this Court’s capital sentencing jurisprudence and with the principle that the sentencer must consider all relevant evidence.53
Yes. Booth and Gathers were based on two premises that evidence relating to a victim’s personal characteristics or the impact on the victim’s family is irrelevant to the capital sentencing decision and that such evidence likely would be unduly prejudicial to a defendant.54 Those premises are rejected because the assessment of harm caused by the defendant has long been an important concern of the criminal law.55
Victim impact evidence is simply another method of informing the sentencer about the specific harm caused by the crime.56 In this case the State introduced the testimony of Mary Zvolanek describing Nicholas’s ongoing pain and the prosecutor commented on the continuing effects on the family.57 The decisions have defied consistent application by the lower courts and have caused confusion and uncertainty in the law.58
Stare decisis is not an inexorable command.59 This is particularly true in constitutional cases because in such cases correction through legislative action is practically impossible.60 The Booth and Gathers decisions were based on a misreading of the Eighth Amendment and a misapplication of this Court’s capital sentencing jurisprudence.61
Booth v. Maryland and South Carolina v. Gathers are overruled.62
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by White, Kennedy
Justice O’Connor joined the Court’s opinion. She wrote separately to emphasize that the admission of victim impact evidence does not violate the Eighth Amendment.63 The States have a legitimate interest in allowing the jury to consider the specific harm caused by the defendant.64
She concluded that if a State decides to permit consideration of this evidence the Eighth Amendment erects no per se bar.65 If evidence so infects the proceeding as to render it fundamentally unfair relief is available under the Due Process Clause.66
Joined by O’connor, Kennedy
Justice Scalia joined the Court’s opinion. He argued that the Booth and Gathers decisions were an unwarranted extension of the Eighth Amendment that had no basis in constitutional text, historical practice, or logic. The Amendment permits the People to decide what is a crime and what constitutes aggravation and mitigation of a crime.
He noted that the doctrine of stare decisis does not require adherence to a precedent that significantly harms the criminal justice system and is egregiously wrong. The response to the defense of stare decisis can be found in Justice Marshall's own writings that the doctrine is not an imprisonment of reason.
Joined by Blackmun
Justice Marshall dissented and would adhere to stare decisis affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals.67 He argued that Booth and Gathers correctly held that victim impact evidence is irrelevant to the capital sentencing decision.68 The Court’s decision today will lead to the arbitrary imposition of the death penalty.69
He noted that the majority’s radical exception to stare decisis invites open defiance of precedents and sends a signal that scores of established constitutional liberties are now ripe for reconsideration.70
Joined by Blackmun
Justice Stevens dissented and would reverse the judgment of the Tennessee Supreme Court.71 He stated that the majority’s decision to overrule Booth and Gathers is not supported by the Eighth Amendment or by this Court’s capital sentencing jurisprudence. The introduction of victim impact evidence allows the jury to make its decision on the basis of emotion rather than reason.
It creates an unacceptable risk that the death penalty will be imposed in an arbitrary and capricious manner.