Washington v. State, 106 So. 3d 441

Washington was convicted of murder during a robbery and sentenced to death in Jefferson County; on appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded for a new sentencing hearing due to an inadequate presentence report; at remand, a new presentence report was admitted but objected to by Washington and again the death sentence was imposed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari on issues related to victim-impact testimony, presentence report adequacy, and independent appellate review; the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings after finding plain error in victim-impact testimony and addressing the presentence report deficiencies; the case centers on whether victim-impact statements were admissible and whether the presentence report adequately informed sentencing; the Court noted potential additional mitigating factors could have been considered with a more thorough report; the final disposition is reversal of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Plain error in victim-impact testimony	Washington argues victim-impact statements violated Eighth Amendment protections	State concedes improper but claims harmless error or non-precedential impact on the jury	Reversed for plain-error due to improper victim-impact testimony
Adequacy of the presentence report on remand	Report was perfunctory and failed to address mental health and family background	Report deemed adequate for sentencing under existing standards	Remanded to reconsider sentence with a fuller presentence report addressing背景 (mental health, social history) and mitigating factors
Independent appellate review of aggravating/mitigating factors	Court should independently review aggravators and mitigators per § 13A-5-53	Review adequate as applied to the remand record	Not expressly resolved beyond indicating need for proper review consistent with the opinion

Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987) (victim-impact evidence generally impermissible in capital sentencing)
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) (upheld limited victim-impact evidence but barred characterizations or opinions about punishment; overruled Booth partially)
Ex parte McWilliams, 640 So.2d 1015 (Ala.1993) (victim-impact statements with opinions about punishment are improper; harms standard not automatic reversal)
Wimberly v. State, 759 So.2d 568 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (plain error when victim-impact statements addressed defendant’s character or future punishment by victims’ relatives)
Gissendanner v. State, 949 So.2d 956 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (victim-impact evidence permissible if no recommendation of punishment or characterization of defendant)
Ex parte Hart, 612 So.2d 536 (Ala.1992) (presentence report should include psychological history; aids sentencing)
Guthrie v. State, 689 So.2d 935 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (perfunctory presentence report can warrant remand for more thorough investigation)