Opinion ID: 2083453
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Evidence of Extreme Emotional Disturbance

Text: Defendant next argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence that he suffered from an extreme emotional disturbance at the time these crimes were committed. Defendant observes that whether a defendant was acting under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the murder is one of the factors to be considered in mitigation, and may be a basis for imposing a sentence other than death. See 720 ILCS 5/9-1(c)(2) (West 1994). Defendant cites Dr. Gelbort's diagnosis that defendant suffers from a schizotypal personality disorder as evidence that defendant was operating under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of these crimes. We do not believe that defendant's counsel was ineffective for failing to make this particular argument at sentencing. A defendant is under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance when his emotional state at the time of the murder is at such a fragile point as to leave him with little to no emotional control. People v. Phillips, 127 Ill.2d 499, 534, 131 Ill.Dec. 125, 538 N.E.2d 500 (1989). There was nothing about defendant's personal history or these particular crimes which would have prompted counsel to explore such a mitigation strategy. Moreover, we find it unlikely that the additional evidence offered by defendant would have caused the sentencing judge to conclude that defendant was under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of these crimes. Defendant acted in a composed and rational manner at the time of the murder. Defendant acted coherently, speaking to the victims and drinking a beer with them. Subsequently, defendant directed the robbery and then ordered the execution of all the victims. It is also apparent defendant appreciated the criminality of his acts, as he concocted a story to protect himself and explain why his coat would be found at the scene. Given all the evidence considered by the sentencing court, including the brutal facts of the crime and defendant's extensive criminal record, defendant has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the sentencing judge would not have imposed the death penalty if counsel had presented Dr. Gelbort's testimony in an attempt to demonstrate that defendant acted under an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the murder. See Henderson, 171 Ill.2d at 152, 215 Ill.Dec. 147, 662 N.E.2d 1287; Coleman, 168 Ill.2d at 538-39, 214 Ill.Dec. 212, 660 N.E.2d 919 (and cases cited therein); People v. Foster, 168 Ill.2d 465, 491-92, 214 Ill.Dec. 244, 660 N.E.2d 951 (1995). Defendant's reliance on cases in which this court has vacated the death sentence is misplaced. See People v. Leger, 149 Ill.2d 355, 173 Ill.Dec. 612, 597 N.E.2d 586 (1992); People v. Johnson, 128 Ill.2d 253, 131 Ill.Dec. 562, 538 N.E.2d 1118 (1989); People v. Carlson, 79 Ill.2d 564, 38 Ill.Dec. 809, 404 N.E.2d 233 (1980). Defendants in those cases, in addition to suffering from severe emotional disturbances at the time of their crimes, had no significant prior criminal records. Here, defendant has failed to establish that he was operating under an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the crimes. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that defendant had an extensive criminal background.