Opinion ID: 867235
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Poor Mental Health

Text: ¶ 113 Poor mental health that does not rise to the level of statutory mitigation under § 13-751(G)(1) may nonetheless be a non-statutory mitigating factor. See Velazquez, 216 Ariz. at 314 ¶ 65, 166 P.3d at 105. Absent a causal nexus to the crime, however, we usually give it little weight. Armstrong, 218 Ariz. at 465 ¶ 77, 189 P.3d at 392. We weigh mental health mitigation in proportion to a defendant's ability to conform or appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. State v. Boggs, 218 Ariz. 325, 344 ¶ 94, 185 P.3d 111, 130 (2008) (quotation omitted). ¶ 114 Prince established that he suffers from mental illness. Both mental health experts opined that Prince suffered from a mental disorder. Prince's expert diagnosed him with borderline personality disorder. The State's expert diagnosed Prince with anti-social personality disorder and agreed that Prince also exhibited some symptoms of borderline personality disorder. Regardless of which specific diagnosis is correct, the record reflects that Prince's mental health is poor and, therefore, is a mitigating factor. ¶ 115 Prince claims a connection exists between his borderline personality disorder and the murder. His expert testified that individuals with borderline personality disorders have labile mood[s] characterized by bouts of intense and inappropriate anger, causing them to destroy relationships and act impulsively. According to Prince, his violent upbringing exacerbated his disorder, making him unable to cope with the violent domestic dispute that resulted in Cassandra's death. ¶ 116 The expert, however, also testified that Prince knew right from wrong, and the State's expert testified that Prince had time to reflect and stop himself from committing the murder. Neither expert could establish Prince's mental state on the night of the shootings. And as stated earlier, neither expert testified that Prince was in a dissociative state, as Prince now claims. ¶ 117 At most, Prince proved that he has a personality disorder, not that the disorder controlled [his] conduct. State v. Brewer, 170 Ariz. 486, 505-06, 826 P.2d 783, 802-03 (1992) (concluding [d]efendant's borderline personality disorder [did] not warrant a reduction of his sentence to life imprisonment); see State v. Stuard, 176 Ariz. 589, 613, 863 P.2d 881, 905 (1993) (Even if [the defendant] became enraged when confronted by his victims, he still displayed some ability to control his actions. . . . The doctors agree he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct and that he did not lose touch with reality.). Consequently, because Prince has failed to establish a causal nexus between his poor mental health and the murder, we give this factor little mitigating weight. See Boggs, 218 Ariz. at 344 ¶ 95, 185 P.3d at 130 (finding no causal link between mental health issues and crime when experts could not establish defendant's mental state or that defendant did not know right from wrong); Pandeli, 215 Ariz. at 533 ¶ 81, 161 P.3d at 576 (giving the defendant's mental health mitigation minimal weight when the evidence showed he knew right from wrong, was not significantly impaired, and did not demonstrate a causal nexus between his mental impairments and the murder). ¶ 118 Prince also claims that his suicidal behavior on the night of the murder is a mitigating factor. Although suicidal behavior is arguably subsumed within the statutory mitigating factor of significant impairment or the non-statutory factor of poor mental health, we give this factor its own mitigating weight. See Williams v. Ryan, 623 F.3d 1258, 1270 (9th Cir.2010) ([A] sentencing court must consider all mitigating evidence.). Although the testimony established that Prince exhibited suicidal tendencies, it also established that Prince knew it was wrong to shoot Cassandra, even if he was suicidal. As a result, Prince's suicidal behavior is entitled to little mitigating weight. ¶ 119 Finally, Prince claims as a mitigating factor his emotional and learning disabilities. These disabilities are a non-statutory mitigating factor but their lack of connection to the crime affects the weight we accord them. See State v. Doerr, 193 Ariz. 56, 71 ¶ 73, 969 P.2d 1168, 1183 (1998) (concluding no connection existed between the defendant's low IQ and the murder). ¶ 120 When Prince moved to Arizona, he was placed in classes for children with significant emotional disabilities. In high school, he attended classes for the learning disabled, but dropped out during the tenth grade. Prince has an IQ of 85 to 90, which his expert described as borderline mental retardation, but which the State's expert described as normal intelligence. Once again, however, Prince has not established any connection between his disabilities and the crime, making them entitled to little mitigating weight.