Payne v. Tennessee 501 U.S. 808 (1991)

AuthorVivian Berger
Pages1889

Page 1889

Writing for a 6?3 majority, Chief Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST held that victim impact evidence in CAPITAL PUNISHMENT cases is not barred by the Eighth Amendment's CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT clause. Payne OVERRULED a contrary decision, BOOTH V. MARYLAND (1987), handed down only four years earlier by a Court divided 5?4.

The drug-crazed and sexually driven Payne stabbed to death a young mother and her two-year-old daughter, and attacked and seriously injured her three-year-old son. At Payne's trial, the grandmother was allowed to testify that the boy cried for his lost relatives. The prosecutor, in closing argument, poignantly portrayed a child in mourning, who would never be kissed good-night by his mother or be able to play with his little sister.

In upholding the admission of testimony relating to the effect of the murders on the boy, the majority rejected Booth 's holding that victim impact evidence subverts the reasoned decisionmaking process required for the imposition of the death penalty. Rehnquist denied that victim impact evidence introduced factors irrelevant to proper sentencing goals (such as retribution and deterrence) or encouraged jurors to base sentences on the perceived moral or social worth of victims or their families (thereby creating an impermissible risk that the penalty would be determined arbitrarily). Rather, he opined, victim impact evidence is designed to show each victim's uniqueness as a human being and provides a needed counterweight to the virtually unlimited proof that the defendant is permitted to adduce concerning his circumstances, character, and record.

In dissent, Justice JOHN PAUL STEVENS echoed the arguments accepted in Booth, while Justice...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT