Opinion ID: 1127469
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Robert's Mitigation

Text: Robert raises no mitigation issues on appeal. However, pursuant to our independent review, we review the mitigating factors presented in the trial court and search the record for any other mitigation. Robert presented six mitigating factors at the mitigation hearing: 1. Relatively Minor Participation 2. Intoxication [3] 3. No Threat to Society 4. Potential for Rehabilitation 5. Dysfunctional Childhood 6. Nonviolent Criminal History We address each in turn.
According to A.R.S. ง 13-703(G)(3), mitigation exists where the defendant shows that he was legally accountable for the conduct of another ..., but his participation was relatively minor, although not so minor as to constitute a defense to prosecution. Robert presented a videotape and transcript in which one William Motter, a detainee in the cell next to Roger at the Mohave County jail, discussed with an officer conversations he allegedly had with Roger. Motter stated that he had a number of conversations with Roger in which Roger admitted killing Morrison and Appelhans. Robert also elicited evidence that Roger is the leader and Robert the follower. The trial court rejected this evidence, finding that the trial evidence showed that defendants acted in concert. He found the video testimony of Motter to be unreliable. The state's rebuttal evidence of a coded message from Robert to Roger, in which Robert stated that he would escape and come back for Roger, went against the evidence that Robert was the follower. Footprint evidence showed that both defendants were active in the crimes at Grasshopper Junction and both were armed when apprehended. In fact, Robert had two spent shotgun shells in his pants when detained. Robert failed to prove relatively minor participation by a preponderance of the evidence.
At trial, a witness testified that defendants were in a bar for several hours on the night of the crimes. At sentencing, Robert presented evidence that defendants were drinking at the bar. A forensic psychologist, Dr. Potts, who conducted a presentence evaluation of Robert, reported that Robert admit[ted] to drinking copious amounts of alcohol in the days prior to the crimes. Dr. Potts concluded, based on his interviews with defendant, that [t]here is probably very little doubt as to his having been acutely intoxicated at the time of the offense. However, there is no evidence ... indicating any mental disorder or defect other than acute intoxication. Voluntary intoxication may be mitigating if the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that his capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired, but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution. A.R.S. ง 13-703(G)(1); see also Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 650-51, 832 P.2d at 667-68. If impairment does not rise to the level of a statutory mitigating circumstance, the trial court should still consider whether such impairment constitutes nonstatutory mitigation, when viewed in light of defendant's alleged history of alcohol and drug abuse. State v. Gallegos, 178 Ariz. 1, 17, 870 P.2d 1097, 1113, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 330, 130 L.Ed.2d 289 (1994). Although Dr. Potts reported that Robert had used alcohol and drugs in the past, there was no corroborating evidence of historic alcohol or substance abuse. The trial court concluded that Robert presented no evidence that the alcohol consumed by the defendant affected his state of mind. Cf. State v. Rossi, 154 Ariz. 245, 251, 741 P.2d 1223, 1229 (1987) (finding that proof of cocaine addiction and effects of addiction supported finding of inability to conform conduct to requirements of the law). Evidence suggested that defendants took steps to hide evidence of their conduct, showing that they appreciated the wrongfulness of their conduct. This evidence included driving the tow truck in the opposite direction from the direction in which they eventually fled, presumably as a decoy. See Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 651, 832 P.2d at 668. We agree with the trial court that defendant failed to show that he was significantly impaired by alcohol during the time of the crimes.
Robert argued to the court that a sentence of less than death would adequately protect society. The trial court concluded that this did not qualify as mitigation. We agree.
The trial court found that defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is capable of rehabilitation. The court found the Rule 26.5 examination and report conducted by Dr. Potts persuasive. In that report, Dr. Potts concluded: He is clearly rehabilitatable. We agree with the trial court that Robert proved potential for rehabilitation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Rossi, 154 Ariz. at 249, 741 P.2d at 1227.
Robert's mother and aunt testified that Robert had a problem with involuntary bowel movements while growing up. Robert's mother also testified that his father hit Robert with his fists in disciplining him, made Robert quit high school to work full time, and made Robert get married at the age of 16 when he got his girlfriend pregnant. Dr. Potts concluded: [D]efendant was reared in an environment not conducive to good role-modeling. The mother was overprotective, with the father being distant, harsh and relatively uncaring. As a boy, Robert Wayne Murray suffered shame and isolation because of his urinary and bowel problems. These were neither recognized nor treated, condemning him to being an outcast. The court found that Robert suffered from a dysfunctional childhood, being subjected to abnormal physical abuse and inconsistent discipline. Again, the court found the conclusions of Dr. Potts persuasive. However, difficult family background is nonmitigating unless defendant can show that something in that background impacted his behavior in a way beyond his control. State v. Wallace, 160 Ariz. 424, 427, 773 P.2d 983, 986 (1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1047, 110 S.Ct. 1513, 108 L.Ed.2d 649 (1990). No such showing was made here.
Robert argued that, although he had a previous criminal history, it was nonviolent โ involving property offenses. Robert does in fact have a history of offenses, including burglary and theft, for which he served time in prison in Alabama. In rebuttal, the state showed that, at the time of his arrest, he was wanted in Alabama for armed robbery and assault. We conclude he has not shown mitigation in this regard.