## Facts

- Christopher Beck was charged with three counts of capital murder and related felonies arising from the rape and murder of Florence Marie Marks and the robbery-murders of William Miller and David Stuart Kaplan.
- Beck pled guilty to all charged offenses, including capital murder predicated on rape and/or robbery while armed, statutory burglary, rape, robberies, and firearm-use offenses.
- The trial court (sitting without a jury) accepted the guilty pleas after the Commonwealth proffered evidence largely based on Beck’s detailed statements to police.
- During the sentencing phase, the Commonwealth presented aggravation and victim-impact material, including numerous letters and statements from victims’ family members, friends, coworkers, and other acquaintances.
- Some victim-impact submissions included explicit recommendations that the court impose the death penalty.
- The trial court found the statutory aggravators of “future dangerousness” and “vileness” and imposed three death sentences.

## Issues

1. Whether a capital sentencer may constitutionally consider victim-impact evidence from persons other than the victims’ family members.
2. Whether Virginia’s capital sentencing statutes permit victim-impact evidence from friends/coworkers and permit consideration of victim-impact materials containing sentencing recommendations.
3. Whether the volume and content of victim-impact letters and recommendations rendered the sentencing proceeding unreliable or arbitrary, and whether the evidence supported findings of “future dangerousness” and “vileness.”

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed Beck’s capital murder convictions and three death sentences.
- The Court held there was no constitutional bar to victim-impact evidence offered by persons closely associated with the victims, including friends and coworkers.
- The Court concluded the victim-impact evidence and the inclusion of sentencing recommendations did not violate Virginia’s statutory scheme and did not create an unconstitutional risk of arbitrary sentencing.
- The Court held the evidence supported the trial court’s findings of both “future dangerousness” and “vileness.”

## Legal Principles

- Victim-impact evidence in capital sentencing may include testimony or statements from individuals other than immediate family members when their relationship to the victim makes the evidence relevant to the harm caused by the offense and it is not so prejudicial as to make the proceeding fundamentally unfair.
- Virginia’s victim-impact provisions are not construed as a categorical limitation to formal family members; they allow relevant evidence about the impact of the crime on those closely connected to the victim.
- In a bench sentencing, the trial judge is presumed to consider sentencing materials for proper purposes and to base the sentence on statutory aggravating factors and the evidentiary record rather than on emotional appeals or lay sentencing preferences.
- Death sentences must rest on supported statutory aggravators (including “future dangerousness” and “vileness”) after consideration of mitigation; victim-impact evidence does not substitute for those findings.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Beck’s three death sentences, ruling that victim-impact evidence from friends and coworkers and letters containing death-penalty recommendations were permissible in this judge-sentenced capital proceeding and did not undermine the statutory aggravator findings of future dangerousness and vileness.


Beck v. Commonwealth, 253 Va. 373, 484 S.E.2d 898 (Va. 1997)