Opinion ID: 1349911
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Recommendations of Leniency

Text: Officer Saldate and Detective Chambers recommended that defendant receive a life sentence rather than the death penalty. The trial judge found that these recommendations were a mitigating circumstance. We acknowledge that a recommendation of leniency from authorities who are intimately involved in a case carries significant weight and may constitute a mitigating circumstance. Officer Saldate testified on defendant's behalf at the sentencing hearing. During cross-examination, the following exchange took place between the prosecutor and Officer Saldate: BY MR. [LOUIS] STALZER [the prosecutor]: Q Sir, if we could raise a hypothetical and have [George] seated next to [defendant], that they're both found guilty for the crimes, would your opinion as to sentence be any different? A [DET. SALDATE] Yes. Q In what way? A I believe they each should get the death penalty. I believe that they would  it's my opinion to give someone a death penalty for a situation, I feel that he should be totally responsible for that situation, to get the death penalty. I think [defendant] is partially responsible for this act. Q So you're saying part of the reprieve is the fact that [George] is not in this court or some other court facing the same charges? A That is correct. (Emphasis added.) Detective Chambers also testified at the presentence hearing and was interviewed during the presentence investigation. The presentence investigation report noted that his recommendation for leniency was based on defendant's immaturity, his intoxication, and his remorse. It was also clear, however, that his recommendation was motivated in part by the dismissal of charges against George. The report reads: Phoenix Police Detective Mike Chambers has very strong feelings in regard to this case. He knows that defendant is guilty of murder and sexual assault. However, he asks the Court to waive the death penalty because the defendant worked in concert with [George]. Detective Chambers believes that [George] should be standing there with the defendant at the time of sentencing. .... Detective Chambers saw remorse on the part of the defendant when he was interviewed, but saw no remorse from [George] because, Detective Chambers believes, he was only concerned for himself. In the interest of justice, Detective Chambers would like to see both George and the defendant get twenty years instead of the defendant getting the death penalty. We have already determined that the dismissal of charges against George is not a legally relevant mitigating factor. The record indicates that Detective Chambers's recommendation is based at least partially on his perception that George has received favorable treatment. Officer Saldate's testimony reveals that he believes both defendant and George should receive the death penalty. On the whole, however, we agree with the trial judge that the recommendations of leniency by the investigating police officers are a non-statutory mitigating factor.