Petitioner
Supreme Court of Tennessee
Respondent
Pervis Tyrone Payne
Petitioner's Claim
That the conviction of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of assault with intent to murder in the first degree should be upheld on the grounds that rights under the Eighth Amendment were not violated by the introduction of victim impact evidence.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
J. Brooke Lathram
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Charles W. Burson, Attorney General of Tennessee
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
27 June 1991
Decision
The Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence.
Significance
A defendant's rights under the Constitution are a vital safeguard against a miscarriage of justice, particularly in a capital trial. In Payne v. Tennessee, the Supreme Court of Tennessee overturned an earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling that barred victim impact evidence in deciding the death sentence.By allowing victim impact evidence at the sentencing phase, this case causedmuch debate regarding both victims' rights, and the rights of the defendantunder the following: the Eighth Amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment; the Fourteenth Amendment demanding due process under the law to all persons; the Sixth Amendment allowing a defendant to confront witnesses; and theConstitution's Equal Protection Clause prohibiting comparative judgments ofthe worth of victims.
The Crime
On Saturday, 27 June 1987, Pervis Tyrone Payne visited the apartment of his girlfriend, Bobbie Thomas, in Millington, Tennessee, awaiting her return froman out-of-town trip. Across the hall from Thomas lived Payne's three victims,Charisse Christopher, her two-year-old daughter Lacie, and her three-year-old son Nicholas. While waiting for Thomas to return home, Payne spent the latemorning and early afternoon injecting cocaine and drinking beer. Later, he and a friend drove around in the friend's car, taking turns reading a pornographic magazine.
Payne returned to the apartment complex around 3:00 p.m., entered the Christopher apartment and made sexual advances toward Charisse Christopher. When sheresisted, Payne stabbed Charisse 84 times with a butcher knife. She died from massive bleeding. He also stabbed Lacie and Nicholas. Lacie died next to her mother, but Nicholas survived Payne's attack. The murder weapon, a butcherknife, was left near Lacie.
When she heard screaming from the Christopher apartment, a neighbor phoned the police, who arrived shortly thereafter, and encountered Payne as he was leaving the building. Payne was soaked in blood, and carrying his overnight bag.When confronted by the officer, Payne struck him with the overnight bag andfled.
The Trial
Payne testified at trial he had not harmed any of the Christophers. However,the evidence against him was overwhelming, and jury returned guilty verdictson all of the three counts against him. During the sentencing phase of the trial, the defense presented four witnesses who testified that Payne attended church, was of good character, treated his girlfriend and her children with loving kindness, had no criminal record, did not use drugs, and, although he had a low I.Q., was mentally normal. Thomas, Payne's girlfriend, stated furtherthat the crimes were inconsistent with Payne's character. The prosecution presented Charisse Christopher's mother, who testified to the effects of the murders on Nicholas. Then, in the sentencing phase, the prosecution argued forthe death penalty, using the ongoing psychological burden on the boy as partof his argument. The jury sentenced Payne to death on each of the murder counts, and to 30 years for the attempted murder of Nicholas.
A Defendant's Rights
Payne contended that the victim impact statement of Charisse Christopher's mother violated his Eighth Amendment rights and emotionally influenced the juryagainst him. In reviewing the trial, the Tennessee Supreme Court rejected the claim, affirming both conviction and sentence.
Discussions of the implications of this case touch on other parts of a defendant's constitutional rights, as well. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees allpersons a right to due process under the law. Justice O'Connor noted that "If, in a particular case, a witness's testimony or a prosecutor's remark so infects the sentencing proceeding as to render it fundamentally unfair, the defendant may seek appropriate relief under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . "
The Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness can also be at issue when victim impact evidence is offered by the prosecution. When a video or taped statement of a dead victim is offered to show the impact of society's loss, the defendant cannot confront a witness to prove the veracity of the statements. When the defendant has been found guilty of a capital crime, the opportunity to confront a witness can become, literally, a matter of life and death. And because the penalty phase of a capital case is considered an extension of theguilt phase, the same protections for the defendant need apply.
The last problem created byPay ne v. Tennessee deals with the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. This prohibits comparative judgments of the worth of victims. In doing so, it does the same for defendants. The murderer of a hardworking parent does not deserve a death penalty sentence any more than the murderer of an unemployed itinerant; the killer of a pedophile deservesa death sentence no less than the killer of a wealthy philanthropist. Victimimpact evidence can cloud this issue. For example, African American defendants are four times more likely to receive the death penalty than are white defendants, so the matter of equal protection under the law is far more than a legal nicety.
The Future of Victim Impact Evidence
As of 1999 49 states had some form of a statute permitting the introduction of victim impact evidence. Although a defendant's appeal of a capital case verdict on constitutional grounds may seem spurious in some instances, this federal challenge must be upheld. When a person opposes the state, both verdict and sentence must be able to withstand close constitutional scrutiny. This legal debate is sure to remain heated for some time to come.
Related Cases
Supreme Court of Tennessee
Respondent
Pervis Tyrone Payne
Petitioner's Claim
That the conviction of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of assault with intent to murder in the first degree should be upheld on the grounds that rights under the Eighth Amendment were not violated by the introduction of victim impact evidence.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
J. Brooke Lathram
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Charles W. Burson, Attorney General of Tennessee
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
27 June 1991
Decision
The Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence.
Significance
A defendant's rights under the Constitution are a vital safeguard against a miscarriage of justice, particularly in a capital trial. In Payne v. Tennessee, the Supreme Court of Tennessee overturned an earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling that barred victim impact evidence in deciding the death sentence.By allowing victim impact evidence at the sentencing phase, this case causedmuch debate regarding both victims' rights, and the rights of the defendantunder the following: the Eighth Amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment; the Fourteenth Amendment demanding due process under the law to all persons; the Sixth Amendment allowing a defendant to confront witnesses; and theConstitution's Equal Protection Clause prohibiting comparative judgments ofthe worth of victims.
The Crime
On Saturday, 27 June 1987, Pervis Tyrone Payne visited the apartment of his girlfriend, Bobbie Thomas, in Millington, Tennessee, awaiting her return froman out-of-town trip. Across the hall from Thomas lived Payne's three victims,Charisse Christopher, her two-year-old daughter Lacie, and her three-year-old son Nicholas. While waiting for Thomas to return home, Payne spent the latemorning and early afternoon injecting cocaine and drinking beer. Later, he and a friend drove around in the friend's car, taking turns reading a pornographic magazine.
Payne returned to the apartment complex around 3:00 p.m., entered the Christopher apartment and made sexual advances toward Charisse Christopher. When sheresisted, Payne stabbed Charisse 84 times with a butcher knife. She died from massive bleeding. He also stabbed Lacie and Nicholas. Lacie died next to her mother, but Nicholas survived Payne's attack. The murder weapon, a butcherknife, was left near Lacie.
When she heard screaming from the Christopher apartment, a neighbor phoned the police, who arrived shortly thereafter, and encountered Payne as he was leaving the building. Payne was soaked in blood, and carrying his overnight bag.When confronted by the officer, Payne struck him with the overnight bag andfled.
The Trial
Payne testified at trial he had not harmed any of the Christophers. However,the evidence against him was overwhelming, and jury returned guilty verdictson all of the three counts against him. During the sentencing phase of the trial, the defense presented four witnesses who testified that Payne attended church, was of good character, treated his girlfriend and her children with loving kindness, had no criminal record, did not use drugs, and, although he had a low I.Q., was mentally normal. Thomas, Payne's girlfriend, stated furtherthat the crimes were inconsistent with Payne's character. The prosecution presented Charisse Christopher's mother, who testified to the effects of the murders on Nicholas. Then, in the sentencing phase, the prosecution argued forthe death penalty, using the ongoing psychological burden on the boy as partof his argument. The jury sentenced Payne to death on each of the murder counts, and to 30 years for the attempted murder of Nicholas.
A Defendant's Rights
Payne contended that the victim impact statement of Charisse Christopher's mother violated his Eighth Amendment rights and emotionally influenced the juryagainst him. In reviewing the trial, the Tennessee Supreme Court rejected the claim, affirming both conviction and sentence.
[w]hen a person deliberately picks up a butcher knife . . . and proceeds to stab to death a 28-year-old mother, her two and one half-year-olddaughter and her three and one half-year-old son, in the same room, the physical and mental condition of the boy he left or dead is surely relevant in determining his blameworthiness . . . [The grandmother's testimony] did not create a constitutionally unacceptable risk of an arbitrary imposition of the death penalty and was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.The U.S.Supreme Court was careful to point out in its 5-4 decision, however, that theruling should be narrowly defined. It emphasized that it did not preclude the possibility of an Eighth Amendment violation, but that "such evidence was per se inadmissible in the sentencing phase of a capital case except tothe extent that it related directly to the circumstances of the crime."
Discussions of the implications of this case touch on other parts of a defendant's constitutional rights, as well. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees allpersons a right to due process under the law. Justice O'Connor noted that "If, in a particular case, a witness's testimony or a prosecutor's remark so infects the sentencing proceeding as to render it fundamentally unfair, the defendant may seek appropriate relief under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . "
The Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness can also be at issue when victim impact evidence is offered by the prosecution. When a video or taped statement of a dead victim is offered to show the impact of society's loss, the defendant cannot confront a witness to prove the veracity of the statements. When the defendant has been found guilty of a capital crime, the opportunity to confront a witness can become, literally, a matter of life and death. And because the penalty phase of a capital case is considered an extension of theguilt phase, the same protections for the defendant need apply.
The last problem created byPay ne v. Tennessee deals with the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. This prohibits comparative judgments of the worth of victims. In doing so, it does the same for defendants. The murderer of a hardworking parent does not deserve a death penalty sentence any more than the murderer of an unemployed itinerant; the killer of a pedophile deservesa death sentence no less than the killer of a wealthy philanthropist. Victimimpact evidence can cloud this issue. For example, African American defendants are four times more likely to receive the death penalty than are white defendants, so the matter of equal protection under the law is far more than a legal nicety.
The Future of Victim Impact Evidence
As of 1999 49 states had some form of a statute permitting the introduction of victim impact evidence. Although a defendant's appeal of a capital case verdict on constitutional grounds may seem spurious in some instances, this federal challenge must be upheld. When a person opposes the state, both verdict and sentence must be able to withstand close constitutional scrutiny. This legal debate is sure to remain heated for some time to come.
Related Cases
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
- Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976).
- Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987).
User Comments Add a comment…