Payne v. Tennessee
Significance, The Crime, The Trial, A Defendant's Rights, Further Readings
Supreme Court of Tennessee
Pervis Tyrone Payne
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
Harry A. Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens
Date of Decision
27 June 1991
The Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence.
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.
- 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).
- Pennsylvania v. Muniz - Significance, Exception From Miranda's Coverage, Exceptions Undermine Miranda, Impact
- Paula Coughlin v. the Las Vegas Hilton: 1994 - The President Is Briefed On The Situation, Report Cites 90 Victims, Coughlin Sues Hilton
- Payne v. Tennessee - Further Readings
- Payne v. Tennessee - Significance
- Payne v. Tennessee - The Crime
- Payne v. Tennessee - The Trial
- Payne v. Tennessee - A Defendant's Rights
- Other Free Encyclopedias