Opinion ID: 3065869
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sentencing Court

Text: At sentencing, Towery presented evidence, through the testimony of his sisters, that his mother was physically and emotionally abusive when he was a child. The sentencing court concluded that Towery’s difficult childhood was not a mitigating circumstance because Towery could not show that it had an effect on his behavior that was beyond his control or rose to the level of a mental impairment: I have heard and considered the evidence concern- ing the defendant’s family background, the manner in which Mr. Towery was raised by his mother. And certainly no one would wish such a condition upon anyone. However, a difficult family background, in and of itself, is not a mitigating circumstance. If it were, nearly every defendant could point to some 2480 TOWERY v. RYAN circumstance in his or her background that would call for some mitigation. A difficult family background is a relevant miti- gating circumstance, if a defendant can show that something in that background had an [e]ffect or impact on his behavior that was beyond the defen- dant’s control. I do not believe there was anything in this case that was beyond the defendant’s control. Although he might not have received the interplay and nurturing that he would have liked to have had and needed from his mother, I have to look at his two siblings, who evidence nothing concerning drug use, and have managed to grow up being relatively stable people in the community, and contributing members of society. Therefore, the fact that the defendant had a dys- functional relationship with his mother, and being subject to emotional abuse, is not a mitigating circumstance, because it amounts to a mere character or personal — personality disorder, and does not rise to the level of a mental impairment. The sentencing court then weighed the mitigating circumstances that it found to exist against the aggravating circumstances and imposed a death sentence: The mitigating circumstances that I have found to exist that merit weight and consideration are the impairment of the defendant’s capacity to conform his conduct to the law due to drug use, which I have given little weight, and the sentence given to his codefendant, to which I have given great weight. I have also considered the defendant’s family background, the manner in which he was raised. I TOWERY v. RYAN 2481 have considered Mr. Towery’s character, propensities, record, and circumstances of the offense which would constitute mitigation. I have considered whether or not this case presents circumstances that are so shocking or repugnant, that the murder stands out above the norm of first degree murder, and whether the background of the defen- dant sets him apart from the usual murderer. In considering the existence of the three aggravating circumstances, and balancing them against the mitigating circumstances, I find the mitigating circumstances which do exist are not significantly substantial to call for leniency. It is unclear from the transcript whether the sentencing court ultimately considered Towery’s difficult childhood in imposing sentence. On the one hand, the court expressly found that Towery’s childhood was not a mitigating circumstance, and, consistent with that determination, the court did not mention Towery’s childhood when it listed the mitigating circumstances it found to exist. On the other hand, the court said that it “also considered the defendant’s family background, the manner in which he was raised” and considered “whether the background of the defendant set[ ] him apart from the usual murderer,” suggesting that the court may have included this evidence in the sentencing calculus after all.