Lucas v. Evatt , 308 S.C. 31 ( 1992 )

Chandler, Justice:

Petitioner D. Cecil Lucas (Lucas) appeals an Order denying postconviction relief (PCR). We affirm.

On July 25,1983, Lucas was sentenced to death for the murders of Bill and Evelyn Rayfield. His sentence was affirmed by this Court and the United States Supreme Court on both direct appeal and PCR.¹

Subsequent to his conviction and sentence, the United States Supreme Court held in Booth v. Maryland² and South Carolina v. Gathers³ that reference to victim impact evidence was impermissible. Pursuant to these cases, Lucas filed this subsequent PCR action, contending the Solicitor’s reference to the Rayfields and their family in the closing argument violated his eighth amendment rights. Upon the denial of PCR, Lucas petitioned for certiorari to this Court.

While his petition was pending, the United States Supreme Court issued Payne v. Tennessee,⁴ explicitly overruling Booth and Gathers, supra.

Lucas argues that, notwithstanding Payne, both Booth and Gathers should remain the law of South Carolina. We disagree. In State v. Johnson, — S.C. —, 410 S.E. (2d) 547 (1991), we adopted as state law the Payne decision. Payne holds that “for the jury to assess meaningfully the defendant’s moral culpability and blameworthiness, it should have before it at the sentencing phase evidence of the specific harm caused by the defendant.” 501 U.S. at —, 111 S. Ct. at 2608, 115 L. Ed. (2d) at 735. Thus, victim impact evidence, as any other relevant evidence, is admissible so long as it is not “so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair....” 501 U.S. at —, 11 S. Ct. at 2608, 115 L. Ed. (2d) at 735.

Adverting to the record, we hold that here the Solicitor’s reference to the victims and the impact of their murders upon their family is sanctioned by Payne. In closing, the Solicitor argued:

I submit to you that the pendulum has swung back toward good honest God fearing people to give them some rights in this country and in this state, and not have the rights sitting all on one side. I will tell you and ask you if you know and decide Bill Rayfield and Evelyn Rayfield, good honest hardworking God fearing people. They had a right to live. He was 65 I think and she was 63 or 64. At that age they had raised three fine children. Even this night of having the pleasure of having the grandchildren and playing with them. The prime of life. They worked hard all their life and finally got what they wanted. They got the children what they wanted.

You saw Billy [Rayfield] up here. You will have all this stuff with you. Seven grandchildren. Here is the bracelet she wore. The silhouette of each individual grandchild. You don’t think that family had a lot of love, a lot of love. You have your pictures over here. Grandchildren. They had every right in this world to live. Who in the world have they harmed? Nobody.

Mr. Givens [defense counsel] said — I couldn’t believe it— ‘Mrs. Lucas, hadn’t it been tough on you for the last eight weeks?’

How about this Rayfield family over here? Has it been tough on Mrs. Lucas? Of course it had been tough. Did they say anything about the Rayfield family and these seven grandchildren? Do you know how many tears have been shed since then and how many will be shed from here on out? Sitting up here, ‘Has it been tough on you?’ They will cry the rest of their life time. ‘Has it been tough on you?’ Sure it has been tough on her, but not like them. Think about the Rayfields. Think about what has been taken away. Just think about it, and they ask for mercy. Look at what has been taken away from these seven grandchildren. What in the world did Mr. and Mrs. Ray-field do wrong? Nothing, nothing.

We find nothing in this argument so egregious as to render the trial “fundamentally unfair.” As in Payne, the Solicitor’s argument here was responsive to Lucas’ mother’s tearful testimony that she loved her son and his arrest and trial had been very hard on her. It described to the jury the consequences of Lucas’ criminal act, the impact of the murders upon the Rayfield family and personal characteristics of Bill and Evelyn Rayfield, which Payne held to be relevant evidence for jury’s consideration.

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of PCR and affirm Lucas’ sentence of death.

Affirmed.

Harwell, C.J., and Toal and Moore, JJ., concur. Finney, J., dissenting in separate opinion.

1 State v. Lucas, 285 S.C. 37, 328 S.E. (2d) 63, cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1012, 105 S. Ct. 2714, 86 L. Ed. (2d) 729 (1985); Lucas v. Aiken, 482 U.S. 931, 107 S. Ct. 3220, 96 L. Ed. (2d) 706 (1987).

2 482 U.S. 496, 107 S. Ct. 2529, 96 L. Ed. (2d) 440 (1987).

3 490 U.S. 805, 109 S. Ct. 2207, 104 L. Ed. (2d) 876 (1989).

4 501 U.S. —, 111 S. Ct. 2597, 115 L. Ed. (2d) 720 (1991).