Opinion ID: 2234065
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 43

Heading: Mitigator (2)(b)

Text: Vela argues that the sentencing panel erred in not finding the existence of the mitigating circumstance described by ง 29-2523(2)(b), that [t]he offender acted under unusual pressures or influences or under the domination of another person. He contends that this error violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. There is no burden of proof with regard to mitigating circumstances. [160] However, because the capital sentencing statutes do not require the State to disprove the existence of mitigating circumstances, the risk of nonproduction and nonpersuasion is on the defendant. [161] In this case, the sentencing panel accepted Vela's argument to the extent that it found that Vela was not the master planner of this attempted robbery or in fact the leader. But based upon other evidence in the record, the panel found that Vela willingly and knowingly participated in the attempted robbery resulting in five murders. This evidence included the fact that Vela had several opportunities to separate himself from the plan to rob the bank, yet did not do so, and that he acted alone in shooting Bryant. The panel also noted that Vela has demonstrated his ability to think and act independently in communications he has made since his arrest, as well as in his guilty pleas over the objections of his counsel. These findings are supported by the record, and the sentencing panel therefore did not err in concluding that the mitigating circumstance described in ง 29-2523(2)(b) did not exist.