Opinion ID: 2344370
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence of mental disease, defect or disturbance.

Text: Defendant submits that his history of psychological problems, as probably caused, and certainly exacerbated, by his horrific childhood unquestionably explains, to the extent that they can be explained, [his] actions in this case. Defendant points out that three jurors found that he suffers from neurologic dysfunction, and the State's rebuttal psychiatrist found that defendant suffered from Bipolar II disorder. Also, defendant points out that, in proportionality analysis, we consider mitigating evidence `even if the jury found it insufficient to establish a statutory mitigating factor.' (citing State v. Feaster(II), supra, 165 N.J. at 403, 757 A. 2d 266). The State acknowledges that three jurors found that defendant suffered from a neurological dysfunction. However, the State emphasizes that the jury unanimously rejected the mitigating factors relating to emotional disturbance and mental disease or defect. Although the State agrees that defendant did present evidence of a troubled upbringing and that some jurors found that evidence mitigating, the State suggests that, as in State v. Timmendequas (II), supra, 168 N.J. at 42, 773 A. 2d 18, [d]espite this poor childhood and resulting debilitating effects on defendant, the evidence was not persuasive that defendant should be relieved of his culpability. There indeed was some evidence that defendant suffered from an emotional disease or defect, and the jury heard a good deal of evidence recounting the questionable parenting techniques of defendant's parents. Although that evidence does not relieve defendant of culpability, it does tend to reduce his moral blameworthiness. State v. Timmendequas (II), supra, 168 N.J. at 42, 773 A. 2d 18. In the end, however, the evidence of mental defect was contested by the State, thereby reducing its impact on defendant's blameworthiness.