Opinion ID: 1952326
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: State's Burden To Rebut Mitigating Factors

Text: Defendant argues that the trial court failed properly to allocate the burden of proof on the finding of mitigating factors. The court correctly informed the jury that defendant bore the burden to come forward with evidence of mitigating factors, but did not instruct the jury that the State bore the actual burden of disproving such a factor once the defendant has introduced competent evidence of its existence. Except for factors such as no prior record, we have consistently held that [t]he jury's determination of whether matters in evidence constitute mitigating factors is the result of a qualitative judgment. Zola, supra, 112 N.J. at 438, 548 A. 2d 1022. The Zola Court gave as an example that although [the] defendant [in Bey ] was of the youngest age that could be subjected to the death penalty, the jury failed to find his youth a mitigating factor. Ibid. (citing Bey II, supra, 112 N.J. at 149, 548 A. 2d 887). We do not believe a jury should be instructed that it must find a statutory mitigating factor for which there is reliable evidence unless the State has disproved it. State v. Harris, 141 N.J. 525, 567, 662 A. 2d 333 (1995). A jury certainly should consider all reliable evidence in assessing whether a factor is present and determine the weight to which the factor is entitled. But whether the evidence meets the statutory definition of a mitigating factor is a matter for the jury.