Rucker, J.
Isom next challenges the trial court’s refusal to allow a witness to answer a juror’s question during the penalty phase of trial. This claim is based on the following facts. In his case-in-chief Isom called as witnesses two of his cousins, one of whom testified that she had spoken to Cassandra’s parents who “told [her] that they forgive. They forgive him.” Tr. at 13442. The other testified that Cassandra’s parents “don’t want the death penalty.” Tr. at 13533. In rebuttal the State called as witnesses Cassandra’s father and sister. Both denied having any conversations with the family about their forgiveness or the State’s request for the death penalty. Before Cassandra’s sister was excused, the trial court invited questions from the jury. One juror inquired, “does the family forgive Kevin?” Tr. at 13828. The trial court did not permit the witness to answer the question. Isom claims reversible error.
….
Indiana Code section 35-50-2-9(c) sets forth a number of mitigating circumstances that the jury (or the judge in the case of a bench trial) may consider when determining whether a sentence of death should be imposed. [Footnote omitted.] There is a statutory “catch-all” mitigator—“[a]ny other circumstances appropriate for consideration.” I.C. § 35-50-2-9(c)(8). We have observed:
[T]he Legislature’s choice to allow death penalty defendants to present every conceivable mitigator is in compliance with Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 [(1978)], which requires that “the sentencer . . . not be precluded from considering as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.”
Minnick v. State, 698 N.E.2d 745, 761 (Ind. 1998) (omission in original) (quoting Lockett, 438 U.S. at 604 (emphasis omitted) (footnote omitted)). It is this proposition upon which Isom relies in contending the trial court committed reversible error in not allowing the witness to answer the juror’s question.
It is true that expressions of forgiveness by a victim of a crime may be considered a mitigating circumstance. . . . However, . . . here there were no surviving victims to express forgiveness. To be sure family members as well as close friends and perhaps even the community at large may be considered “victims” of these horrendous crimes in a general sense. But for purposes of mitigation evidence the issue is whether Cassandra, Ci’Andria, or Michael forgave Isom for his crimes. This is unknowable. In short Isom does not explain how the family’s forgiveness is a mitigating factor. That is to say, he does not explain how or why the family’s thoughts on the killings have a bearing on Isom’s character or any circumstances of the offenses. See Minnick, 698 N.E.2d at 761. The trial court committed no error in disallowing the witness’ testimony. [Footnote omitted.]
Rush, C.J., and Dickson, David and Massa, JJ., concur.