Opinion ID: 1316820
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mitigating v. Aggravating Circumstances

Text: Guzman asserts that the mitigating circumstances clearly outweighed the aggravating circumstances; therefore, a sentence of life imprisonment should have been imposed. After considering the evidence, weighing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and unanimously finding that the aggravating circumstances existed, the jury unanimously agreed that Guzman should be sentenced to death on each of the aggravating circumstances. During the hearing concerning Guzman's motion for a new trial, the trial judge stated, Had I, as trial judge been weighing the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances, I would have reached a different conclusion than the jury reached; and I would have imposed a life sentence. The jury was presented with the facts and evidence. Seven mitigating circumstances were put forth to the jury. These mitigating circumstances included testimony concerning Guzman's extensive mental and emotional problems; however, the jury after weighing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances found that the seven mitigating circumstances did not outweigh the aggravating circumstances. It is our duty as an appellate court to review the record, evidence, and determination of the jury. It is not our duty to re-try a case for what may be a better result. State v. Garcia . We are required to assure that a defendant is not put to death if the evidence would support a finding that the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances. This is very difficult to do when a jury has weighed the evidence and determined that the death penalty is the appropriate penalty. In any event, the trial judge could not make such a ruling. A review of the evidence in this case supports the jury's determination. See State v. Cheadle.