CURTIS MAURICE LOPEZ v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Getty, March 29, 2018,
Sentencing – Victim Impact – Prepared victim-impact evidence must meet one of the categories set out in CP 11-402(e), though live victim-impact testimony at sentencing is not similarly limited.
Facts:
Lopez married Jane McQuain while he was imprisoned in Pennsylvania on an unrelated conviction for attempted murder. While Lopez was still incarcerated, Ms. McQuain became pregnant by another man, and gave birth to a son.
After Lopez was released, he lived in North Carolina while Ms. McQuain and her son, William, continued to live in Maryland. In 2011, Lopez came to Maryland to visit, staying with McQuain and her son. One evening, as Ms. McQuain lay in her bed, Lopez struck her in the head with a thirty-pound dumbbell and stabbed her twice in the back with a butcher knife, inflicting fatal wounds. He then robbed her and beat her son William to death with a baseball bat, shattering his skull into 36 pieces.
Lopez entered into an Alford plea (essentially pleading guilty while still maintaining his innocence).
At sentencing, the State played (over objection from the defense) an approximately six-minute montage of 115 still photographs, showing the two victims, Jane and William McQuain, throughout their lives, either alone, together, or with a family member or friend. The video began with a bell ringing. It was then initially accompanied by a piano instrumental piece and then by a pop song, as each photograph faded in and out. Finally, it concluded with the same sound of a ringing bell that signaled the commencement of the video.
Lopez was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences for the murders.
Lopez appealed to the Court of Special Appeals but his sentence was affirmed.
Lopez then requested review from the Court of Appeals, arguing that the video montage violated the law on victim impact statements, violated his right to Due Process, and resulted in a Cruel and Unusual Sentence.
Held: The Court of Appeals held that the trial judge was not wrong to allow the victim impact video at sentencing.
Sentencing – Victim Impact- The Maryland Declaration of Rights and Maryland Law grant victims the right “upon request and if practicable… to be heard at a criminal justice proceeding”
Sentencing – Victim Impact – Victim Impact evidence is not limited to the two types of “victim impact” evidence discussed by statute (victim impact statements and victim impact testimony)
Sentencing – Victim Impact – Any victim impact evidence not strictly permitted by statute is within the sentencing judge’s discretion to consider
Sentencing – Victim Impact – Videos can be relevant and probative at a sentencing hearing for purposes such as showing the personal characteristics and unique identity of the victim.
Sentencing – Victim Impact – There can and should be limitations on victim impact evidence, especially when that evidence is “prepared and reviewed” before the sentencing hearing.
Victim Impact Statement – A victim impact statement for a crime or delinquent act shall:
(1) identify the victim;
(2) itemize any economic loss suffered by the victim;
(3) identify any physical injury suffered by the victim and describe the seriousness and any permanent effects of the injury;
(4) describe any change in the victim’s personal welfare or familial relationships;
(5) identify any request for psychological services initiated by the victim or the victim’s family;
(6) identify any request by the victim to prohibit the defendant or child respondent from having contact with the victim as a condition of probation, parole, mandatory supervision, work release, or any other judicial or administrative release of the defendant or child respondent, including a request for electronic monitoring or electronic monitoring with victim stay–away alert technology; and
(7) contain any other information related to the impact on the victim or the victim’s family that the court requires.
Sentencing – Victim Impact – Prepared materials – All victim impact evidence prepared prior to sentencing, including victim impact videos, needs to meet at least one of the very broad content requirements listed above
Sentencing – Victim Impact – A sentencing judge should still consider whether victim impact evidence is cumulative, whether the probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, or whether the admission of victim impact evidence would be so unduly prejudicial that it would violate the defendant’s due process rights.
From the Case: Upon a review of the video, “we conclude that this piece of victim impact evidence clearly identified both of the victims for the sentencing judge. The six-minute-and-twelve-second video portrayed 115 photographs of the two victims, including photos of the individual victims and the victims as a family. The video depicted the victims throughout various stages of their lives, engaging in activities, as well as spending time together as a mother and son. The identity of the victims is one of the permissible contents listed under CP § 11-402(e)(1), which we have adopted and applied to all prepared victim impact evidence. As such, we conclude that the video played at Mr. Lopez’s sentencing hearing satisfied the content restrictions under the adopted statute.”
Victim Impact – Live Testimony – “Because written victim impact statements are prepared and reviewed prior to the commencement of the sentencing proceeding, their content can be effectively delineated by statute. Oral victim impact testimony, in contrast, cannot be controlled with such precision. Victim impact witnesses testify under great emotional strain and, in venting their pain and frustration, may make an occasional reference to the impact of the crime on individuals beyond the victim’s family”
8th Amendment – In a non-death-penalty case, a defendant’s Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment is not violated when victim impact evidence is introduced at sentencing.
Due Process – A non-death-penalty sentencing hearing could be “fundamentally unfair” when the victim impact evidence inflames the passion of the sentencing judge more than the facts of the crime.
Due Process – A judge is less likely than a jury to be “inflamed” by victim impact testimony
From the Case: A short video montage did not “inflame” the sentencing judge “more than the irrefutably shocking, horrific, and emotional” facts of the case.