## Facts

- John Booth was convicted in Maryland state court of two counts of first-degree murder and related offenses for killing an elderly couple.
- A jury imposed the death penalty under Maryland’s capital sentencing scheme.
- Maryland law required a presentence report to be provided to the sentencing jury, including a victim impact statement (VIS) describing the effect of the crime on the victim and the victim’s family.
- The VIS, based on family interviews, included (1) the victims’ personal characteristics and the emotional impact of the murders on family members and (2) family members’ opinions and characterizations of the crime and of Booth.
- Booth moved to suppress the VIS as irrelevant, unduly inflammatory, and unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the VIS did not inject an arbitrary factor and permissibly informed the jury about the harm caused by the crime.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits a capital sentencing jury from considering a victim impact statement describing the victim’s personal characteristics and the emotional impact on the victim’s family.
2. Whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits a capital sentencing jury from considering the victim’s family members’ opinions and characterizations of the crime and the defendant.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment insofar as it upheld Booth’s death sentence, in a 5–4 opinion by Justice Powell.
- The Court held that introducing the VIS at the capital sentencing phase violated the Eighth Amendment.
- The Court concluded the Maryland statute was unconstitutional to the extent it required the sentencing jury to consider the VIS information at issue.
- The Court reasoned that the challenged victim-impact materials were irrelevant to the defendant’s blameworthiness and created an unacceptable risk that the death penalty would be imposed arbitrarily and capriciously.
- The Court also found that family members’ emotionally charged opinions and characterizations could only inflame the jury and divert it from deciding based on the relevant evidence about the crime and the defendant.

## Legal Principles

- In capital sentencing, the Eighth Amendment requires heightened reliability and reasoned decisionmaking in determining whether death is the appropriate punishment.
- A capital sentencer’s consideration must focus on the defendant’s background, character, and record, and the circumstances of the offense.
- Victim-impact evidence concerning a victim’s personal qualities and the family’s emotional response risks shifting the sentencing decision to irrelevant considerations, such as the perceived worth of the victim or the family’s ability to express grief.
- Allowing such victim-impact material creates a constitutionally unacceptable risk of arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty.
- Permitting relatives’ opinions and characterizations of the crime and the defendant is especially improper because it invites emotional condemnation rather than a punishment determination tied to culpability.

## Conclusion

The Court held that, in a capital case, the Eighth Amendment forbids the sentencing jury from considering victim impact statements detailing the victim’s characteristics, the family’s emotional suffering, and the family’s opinions about the crime or defendant, because such information is irrelevant to culpability and risks arbitrary, emotion-driven death sentences.


Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987)