1HV0iyl#CEB
1HV0iyl#CEB
1HV0iyl#CEB
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Although Carley was only three years old when she was killed, he makes the same<br />
argument regarding Janet Foley’s identification of photographs of Carley when<br />
she was less than a year old and when she turned two. To the contrary, “[t]he<br />
People are entitled to present a ‘ “complete life histor[y] [of the murder victim]<br />
from early childhood to death.” ’ [Citation.] Such evidence, which typically<br />
comes from those who loved the murder victim, shows ‘how they missed having<br />
[that person] in their lives.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Garcia (2011) 52 Cal.4th<br />
706, 751-752.) Testimony about Mary’s childhood incidents or activities that she<br />
shared with her family showed her uniqueness and explained why her family<br />
continued to be affected by her death. (People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210,<br />
1274-1275; People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 398.) Moreover, we have<br />
upheld the admission of photographs, including childhood photographs, to<br />
illustrate victim impact testimony. (People v. Suff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1013, 1076;<br />
People v. Nelson, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 219-220.)<br />
Here, the victim impact evidence was neither unduly prejudicial nor so<br />
inflammatory that it invited the jury to make its penalty determination on a purely<br />
irrational basis.<br />
2. Multiple-Murder Special-Circumstance Instruction and Verdict<br />
Forms<br />
Defendant contends that in relation to the multiple-murder specialcircumstance<br />
finding, the trial court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury to<br />
render a single verdict, either of life imprisonment without possibility of parole or<br />
death, with reference to both victims, rather than instructing the jury to render a<br />
separate verdict as to each victim. He argues that the instruction and attendant<br />
verdict forms deprived him of an individual penalty determination for each murder<br />
count. We conclude that defendant has forfeited his claim by failing to object to<br />
38