Opinion ID: 2516369
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Age and Emotional Immaturity

Text: ś 138 Both the trial court and the majority conclude that the defendant's age of twenty years, three months does not deserve significant weight as a statutory mitigator because of his average intelligence and alleged maturity. I respectfully disagree. In Trostle, we held that the defendant's age, also twenty years, was a mitigator when evidence showed that he was a follower, easily manipulated, and had never lived as an independent functioning adult-this, despite the fact that Trostle was found to have average intelligence. 191 Ariz. at 21, 951 P.2d at 886. ś 139 Similarly, although Aaron Hoskins tested at an average level of intelligence, family members and experts alike agreed that he was a follower and easily manipulated. The evidence clearly indicates an extreme lack of maturity. Underlying themes in the defendant's juvenile records include his tendency to succumb to peer pressure, as well as his need to be cared for and shown the way. Mary Durand, a highly experienced investigator and mitigation specialist, testified that those records were replete with comments about his inability to fight off peer pressure. A recurring concern in his parole plan evaluations was the need to teach him to stand up for himself and to say no. A psychological evaluation conducted in 1987 described the defendant as being vulnerable to peer pressure, needing to be liked as well as having impulse control problems. It also noted his inability to express anger in a modulated fashion. The psychologist for the defense, Dr. Lanyon, testified that Hoskins is pre-adolescent as far as his emotional maturity is concerned. Even the state's psychologist, Dr. Bayless, indicated that experts in the MMPI (a test used to measure personality and emotional functioning) would interpret the defendant's scores as being characteristic of, among other things, an [i]mmature, passive, and dependent person. The defendant's spouse, Tammy, expressed frustration over being more like a mother than a wife to him. In an interview with Durand, Tammy said that Hoskins was easily led [and] that other people always controlled him like she had. That he really needed somebody to tell him what to do, when to do it, where to do it, and how to do it. This evidence plainly contradicts the majority's conclusion that the defendant's immaturity and impulsivity are refuted by the record. Supra at ś 121. ś 140 The court's opinion further says, we do not conclude that [the defendant] `never has had the experience of living as an independent functioning adult.' Supra at ś 105 (quoting Trostle, 191 Ariz. at 21, 951 P.2d at 886). I reach a contrary conclusion. The defendant moved from his mother's house to various motel rooms with his wife, and subsequently to his in-laws' home. He did not have a job and did not support himself or his wife. Indeed, Dr. Bayless testified that the defendant showed consistent signs of irresponsibility by never maintaining employment or honoring financial obligations. ś 141 Moreover, contrary to the majority, I submit that the defendant's criminal history does not demonstrate that he was very mature for his age. Supra at ś 103 (echoing the trial court's assertion). A close look at the crimes he committed reveals that most were related to his youth. They begin at eight years of age and do not in any way indicate maturity or sophistication. In fact, they suggest just the opposite. One assault charge stemmed from an incident in which the defendant threw a snowball at another youngster and broke the window of a passing car. The second assault was an after-school fight involving another boy who earlier had struck Hoskins in the face with a whiffle ball. A third assault occurred when the defendant tried to choke another youngster with a plastic necklace after the latter hit him. The weapons offense arose when, at age eleven, he took a gun to school to compare its size with guns brought to school by other boys that same day. A burglary conviction resulted from the defendant having accompanied his older sister when she took $400 from their intoxicated grandmother, who was babysitting them at the time. Finally, an arson conviction came about when he and some friends set fire to a shed. ś 142 The contexts in which these crimes occurred confirm the defendant as an immature follower and a child with no parental guidance or supervision. Consequently, I conclude that his age of twenty years and three months qualifies as a statutory (G)(5) mitigator and should be given significant weight, as should the nonstatutory mitigating factor of emotional immaturity.