Opinion ID: 2432958
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: youth as mitigating evidence

Text: The appellant turned 18 about two months before the crimes were committed. This evidence was presented to the jury and was submitted on the form as a mitigating circumstance. The jury found that [t]here was no evidence of any mitigating circumstance. Because the jury did not check the part of the form providing that there was evidence of mitigating circumstances but the jury agreed they did not exist at the time of the murder, appellant argues the jury improperly failed to consider the evidence of appellant's youth. In Giles v. State, 261 Ark. 413, 549 S.W.2d 479 (1977) this court found error in the sentencing procedure in the jury's failure to find any mitigating circumstances where there was evidence throughout the record that appellant was an imbecile who suffered from organic brain syndrome. In that same case, however, the jury found that the youth of the appellant, who was apparently 19 or 20 when the crime was committed, was not a mitigating factor. This court affirmed the jury's finding, stating, [a]ny hard and fast rule as to age would tend to defeat the ends of justice, so the term youth must be considered as relative and this factor weighed in the light of varying conditions and circumstances. Giles, supra ; see also Neal v. State, 261 Ark. 336, 548 S.W.2d 135 (1977). We do not interpret the jury's action to mean that they did not consider the evidence of mitigation that was offered. Rather we find the jury determined that the appellant's youth was not a mitigating factor, as they were entitled to do, and so indicated that no mitigating circumstances were found. No error was committed.