§ 9738. Victim impact statements.
(a) General rule.--Notwithstanding any other statute, rule or provision of law to the contrary, in the
trial of a defendant accused of an offense, including an offense subject to sentence
under section 9711 (relating to sentencing procedure for murder of the first degree),
a court shall not order the exclusion of any victim of the offense from the trial
on the basis that the victim may, during the sentencing phase of the proceedings:
(1) make a victim impact statement or present any victim impact information in relation
to the sentence to be imposed on the defendant; or
(2) testify as to the effect of the offense on the victim or the family of the victim.
(b) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "victim" shall mean a "victim" as defined in:
(1) 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106 (relating to restitution for injuries to person or property); or
(2) 18 Pa.C.S. § 3001 (relating to definitions).
(June 25, 1997, P.L.293, No.28, eff. imd.; July 2, 2014, P.L.945, No.105, eff. 60
days; Oct. 24, 2018, P.L.891, No.145, eff. imd.)
2018 Amendment. Act 145 amended subsec. (b).
1997 Amendment. Act 28 added section 9738.
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Ali, R., 149 A.3d 29 (Pa. 2016).
· cites it 8× “§9738 (“Victim impact statements”), the Superior Court held, as a matter of law, such evidence is irrelevant and inadmissible at sentencing under such circumstances, the trial court therefore abused its discretion, and resentencing was required.”
Com. of Pa. v. King, 182 A.3d 449 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 4× “201(5) and 42 Pa.C.S. § 9738 as well as the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution when the sentencing court considered irrelevant factors that were stated in a victim impact statement.”
Commonwealth v. Ali, 112 A.3d 1210 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9738: [I]n the trial of a defendant accused of an offense, .”
Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007).
“” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9738. Victim impact testimony is defined as “evidence concerning the victim and the impact that that death of the victim has had on the family of the victim----”42 Pa.”
Com. v. Theisen, C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 9738. “Victim” is defined by 18 P.”
Com. v. Campbell, M. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“103 and 42 Pa.C.S. § 9738). The interpretation of a statute raises a question of law for which our standard and scope of review is de novo and plenary.”
Com. v. Theisen, C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“§ 9738 is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether Detective Mercurio’s testimony at sentencing was permissible, and that Appellant cites to no other authority that would prohibit the testimony. Majority Memorandum at 16.”
Com. v. Husner, R. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
“Finally, the trial court found the statement was admissible under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9738 (“Victim impact statements,” discussed infra).”
Com. v. Harris, W. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).
“] Did the court err when it sentenced [Appellant] to aggravated sentences that ran consecutively due to the inflaming nature of the media coverage for this matter; the improper “victim impact” testimony under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9738 submitted by the Commonwealth before defense counsel…”
Com. v. Harris, W. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).
“] Did the court err when it sentenced [Appellant] to aggravated sentences that ran consecutively due to the inflaming nature of the media coverage for this matter; the improper “victim impact” testimony under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9738 submitted by the Commonwealth before defense counsel…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9738(a)(1) — 1 case
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Ali, R., 149 A.3d 29 (Pa. 2016).
“§9738 (“Victim impact statements”), the Superior Court held, as a matter of law, such evidence is irrelevant and inadmissible at sentencing under such circumstances, the trial court therefore abused its discretion, and resentencing was required.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9738(b) — 1 case
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Ali, R., 149 A.3d 29 (Pa. 2016).
“§9738 (“Victim impact statements”), the Superior Court held, as a matter of law, such evidence is irrelevant and inadmissible at sentencing under such circumstances, the trial court therefore abused its discretion, and resentencing was required.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.