CAV: Victim statement showed link between offenses

A sentencing court properly considered a written statement and testimony by the victim of a defendant who engaged in a multi-year campaign of death threats against the victim and her family members. Her statements regarding the defendant’s prior convictions for the same conduct against her were necessary to show the harm caused by the continuing and escalating threats.

Background

Appellant Roland Baldwin was convicted in 2012 for making a written threat to kill or do bodily injury to victim M.T. Approximately two months after his release from prison, Baldwin’s suspended sentence was revoked when he violated his probation by violating a protective order prohibiting contact with M.T.

From prison, Baldwin wrote new letters with threats against M.T., her daughter, and the organization where she volunteered – e.g. “All I think about is what [M.T.] did to me and what she took from me. So I am going to take everything from her…. [Her] nightmare is just beginning.” Thus, before his release, he was charged again with making a written threat to kill or do bodily harm. He pleaded guilty.

At sentencing, the circuit court considered a victim impact statement and testimony from M.T. She met Baldwin at a center for vulnerable and homeless individuals. She often took her severely handicapped daughter there. M.T. dated Baldwin a few times but ended the relationship with Baldwin when he began sending her threatening text messages. To punish her for cutting off contact, he sent 25 explicit death threats against her, her daughter, her sister and others. M.T. explained that on her first visit to the center after Baldwin’s 2012 release, he was waiting across the street and began walking toward her, in violation of the protective order. M.T. was terrified that even after a year of incarceration, Baldwin was stalking her just as he’d described in his threats. He then blamed M.T. for reporting his violation.

M.T. explained that she found the later threats more terrifying than the first ones because Baldwin previously knew M.T.’s first name only, but when M.T. reported the violation, he learned her personal contact and identification information through case documents. He then sent letters to M.T.’s sister enumerating personal details about M.T. that he had uncovered, including prior residences, her work resume, her parents’ names and address, where she has her car repaired, where she vacations, and even the hospital in which M.T. gave birth to her now-adult daughter. Baldwin detailed how he planned to use this information to track M.T. down and harm her and her family.

M.T. further explained that because of Baldwin’s escalating threats, she was compelled to leave a job she loved at a preschool in order to protect the children from potential harm and stop volunteering at the center to protect the people there.

Baldwin objected to M.T.’s victim impact statement, arguing that her reference to the substance and effect of his prior threats were not admissible testimony under the Crime Victim and Witness Rights Act.

Victim impact statement

M.T.’s testimony regarding the underlying facts of Baldwin’s prior convictions on related crimes, where she was a victim, was admissible and relevant to ensure that the full impact of Baldwin’s crime was brought to the court’s attention.

Far from being an isolated event, Baldwin’s threats in the current offense were part of an ongoing pattern of threatening and psychologically tormenting this particular victim. His prior relationship with M.T., including his threats to her and his violation of the protective order, provided the context for the current offense.

Furthermore, M.T. had the statutory right to identify the nature and extent of any physical or psychological injury she suffered as a result of the offense. Her testimony explained why the progressive nature of the threats made them more terrifying to her. Her testimony specifically linked the details of Baldwin’s prior crimes to the greater psychological impact of his current offense.

Moreover, M.T. had a statutory right to testify to any change in her personal welfare, lifestyle or familial relationships as a result of the offense, such as the need to leave her job and the impact on her relationships.

As a whole, M.T.’s written victim impact statement and testimony were articulate summaries of the history of Baldwin’s threats against her and alerted the trial court to the full psychological impact of the current offense. To the extent that her statements did not fall squarely under the Code provisions permitting such testimony, they were still admissible if they were relevant information for sentencing. Here, the written threats were part of Baldwin’s multi-year campaign to terrorize M.T. The details of Baldwin’s prior conduct against the same victim were part of the “wide range of information” needed to effectuate an appropriate sentence.

The trial court was also required to take into account Baldwin’s lack of remorse, as evidenced by testimony that Baldwin blamed the victim for his incarceration, continued to make threats, and vowed revenge. Baldwin’s taunting of M.T. with the revelation that he had obtained her personal information and his declaration that he would enjoy her screams when he hunted her down supported the trial court’s conclusion that incapacitation was an important purpose of incarceration in this case.

Affirmed.

Baldwin v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0740-17-4, July 17, 2018. CAV (Petty), from Fairfax Cir. Ct. (Bellows). Melissa Hasanbelliu for Appellant; Rachel L. Yates for Appellee. VLW No. 018-7-181, 12 pp.