Opinion ID: 2594480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 33

Heading: Weight given to aggravating and mitigating factors

Text: Defendant complains the trial court did not give sufficient weight to his intoxication at the time of his offenses and the particularly adverse effect drugs and alcohol had on his behavior. (§ 190.3, factor (h).) The trial court stated in this regard: I don't find any significant evidence of mental disease or defect in this case due to intoxication. And I am prepared to accept the fact that there was evidence of intoxication. But I don't believe it was sufficient evidence to mitigate. As I have indicated previously he evidenced a knowing design to take human life and a continuing disregard for it. This statement represents a reasonable assessment of the evidence. Though some evidence indicated that defendant became intoxicated during the day and evening prior to the murders, other evidence, including his careful efforts to clean and conceal the murder weapon and his telephone call to his girlfriend at the approximate time of the murders, indicated defendant was able to function without significant impairment. We find no error. Defendant next complains the trial court did not give sufficient weight to the tragic circumstances of his birth and childhood, his ongoing struggles with drug and alcohol addiction, and his good character when sober. (§ 190.3, factor (k).) The trial court stated that it had paid particular attention to evidence of defendant's life history. The court concluded: I am not persuaded, after hearing the evidence, that his unfortunate childhood can be an acceptable kind of wellspring from which we can accept this kind of conduct or this kind of behavior. [¶] What I have observed is conscious indifference to human life. And I have observed no true remorse during the course of these proceedings.... This statement shows that the court weighed the mitigating evidence and gave it the weight it deemed appropriate in light of defendant's crimes. We find no error. Defendant further argues that the trial court did not give sufficient weight to his young age and extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of his offenses. (§ 190.3, factors (d), (i).) The court expressly took defendant's age into consideration but found it not mitigating in comparison to the circumstances of defendant's crimes. Defendant was 24 when he committed these crimes, and he had substantial prior experience with the criminal justice system. The evidence does not suggest he lacked the maturity or sophistication necessary to appreciate the significance of his actions. The court also took the possibility of mental or emotional disturbance into consideration but found no evidence defendant had a disturbance other than the pressing need to satisfy whatever his own personal needs were. On appeal, defendant cites no evidence of mental or emotional disturbance, implying that defendant's personal history and the crimes themselves are sufficient to establish such a disturbance. They are not. Finally, defendant argues the trial court gave too much weight in aggravation to the circumstances of defendant's crimes. Defendant complains that the court characterized the crimes as a blood bath, callous and inhumane, and uncommonly cruel, and added that defendant was remorseless on the night of the crimes and had abandoned any sense of morality. All these characterizations accurately describe the evidence and were appropriate considerations under section 190.3, factor (a). We find no error.