Commonwealth v. Summit
Opinion of the Court
On August 28, 2003, a motion was made by the Attorney for the Commonwealth that the pre-sentence investigation report that was ordered for Cases CR03-654 and CR03-737 include an additional Victim Impact Statement from this case. Defendant objected to the inclusion of an Impact Statement with respect to this case because a Nolle Prosequi was entered and prosecution was discontinued. Having considered the arguments of counsel and taken the motion under advisement, the court will now sustain Defendant’s objection to inclusion of such a statement, solely under the facts of this case.
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-299.1, governing victim impact statements, does not specifically address the admission of these statements other than to specify that pre-sentence reports shall include them. In contrast, the code section governing such reports, Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-299, plainly states that they are prepared in cases where the defendant has been found guilty, or a guilty plea entered (by agreement or otherwise): “When a person is tried in a circuit court ... (ii) upon a felony charge, the court may when there is a plea agreement... and shall when the defendant pleas guilty without a plea agreement, or is found guilty by the court after a plea of not guilty. . . .” direct a probation officer to prepare a pre-sentencing report.
It bears mentioning that this determination is separate from the continuing discretion of the court to hear Victim Impact Statement evidence for sentencing. The Supreme Court, in discussing victim impact evidence, has stated:
The determination of. admissibility of relevant evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court. ... “A judge, unlike a juror, is uniquely suited by training, experience, and judicial discipline to disregard potentially prejudicial comments and to separate, during the mental process of adjudication, the admissible from the inadmissible, even though he has heard both.”
Beck v. Commonwealth, 253 Va. 373, 385 (1997) (quoting Eckhart v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 213, 216 (1981)). Upon appeal, the admission of victim impact evidence is reviewed on an abuse of discretion basis. Beck, 253 Va. at 386.
However, there is a clear distinction between the admission of victim impact evidence for a crime where the defendant was convicted and the admission of a separate Victim Impact Statement for a charge that was nolle prosequied by the Commonwealth. Beck simply involved evidence that the Commonwealth sought to include in the Victim Impact Statement. There, the
Accordingly, Defendant’s objection is sustained and the motion is denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.