## Facts

- Rasheed Muhammad was indicted for capital murder and related offenses arising from the kidnapping, rape, and murder of eight-year-old Jakiyah McClain in Newark, New Jersey (April 1, 1995).
- Jakiyah went to a nearby friend’s apartment building; Muhammad, who knew the child’s mother, entered and offered to walk Jakiyah upstairs.
- A witness observed Muhammad lead Jakiyah upstairs and soon heard sounds consistent with a struggle and the child screaming.
- The State notified its intent to seek the death penalty under New Jersey’s capital sentencing scheme.
- Before trial, Muhammad challenged the constitutionality of New Jersey’s victim-impact provision, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(6), which authorizes evidence about the victim’s characteristics and the impact of the death on survivors for sentencing consideration.
- The trial court held the victim-impact statute unconstitutional and barred victim-impact evidence at any capital sentencing proceeding in the case.
- The State appealed; Muhammad cross-appealed, and the New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the interlocutory, pretrial constitutional ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(6) authorizing victim-impact evidence in capital sentencing violates the Eighth Amendment or the federal Due Process Clause.
2. Whether the victim-impact statute violates parallel protections under the New Jersey Constitution requiring heightened reliability and non-arbitrary capital sentencing.
3. What evidentiary and procedural limitations are required to prevent victim-impact evidence from becoming unfairly prejudicial or functioning as an extra aggravating factor.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the trial court and held N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(6) constitutional under both the United States and New Jersey Constitutions.
- The Court concluded federal precedent permits victim-impact evidence in capital sentencing and does not impose a categorical Eighth Amendment bar.
- The Court held the statute can operate within New Jersey’s capital framework if courts ensure the evidence is controlled, relevant, and not inflammatory.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, allowing victim-impact evidence subject to judicially enforced safeguards.

## Legal Principles

- Victim-impact evidence is not per se unconstitutional in capital sentencing; admissibility depends on whether it creates an unacceptable risk of an arbitrary or unreliable death sentence.
- The victim-impact provision does not create an independent aggravating factor and may not be used as an “implicit” aggravator beyond the statute’s enumerated aggravating factors.
- Trial courts must limit victim-impact presentations to relevant, non-cumulative, non-inflammatory evidence about the victim and the effects of the death on survivors.
- Survivors’ opinions about the appropriate sentence are impermissible; sentencing remains a structured weighing of statutory aggravating and mitigating factors.
- Safeguards include pretrial control of the form and scope of victim-impact proof and clear limiting jury instructions explaining the restricted purpose of such evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld New Jersey’s capital victim-impact statute, ruling that victim-impact evidence may be presented at sentencing so long as trial courts strictly control its scope and instruct jurors to consider it only within the statutory weighing process, not as a separate basis for imposing death.


State v. Muhammad, 145 N.J. 23, 678 A.2d 164 (N.J. 1996)