Opinion ID: 1794679
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: R. at 139.

Text: These findings by the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals, do not conflict with the United States Supreme Court's holding in Eddings v. Oklahoma , as Ferguson argues. In Eddings, the Supreme Court applied the rule from Lockett v. Ohio, supra . It did not change the rule that a sentencer is to consider the characteristics of the person who committed the crime. Eddings, 455 U.S. at 112, 102 S.Ct. 869 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 197, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)). This Court has also relied upon Eddings for this rule. See Ex parte Borden, 769 So.2d 950, 958 (Ala. 2000)(There is no requirement that a sentencing authority must find the evidence offered by the defendant as a mitigating factor; however, the sentencing authority may not be precluded from considering any mitigating factor. (Emphasis original.)); and Ex parte Cochran, 500 So.2d 1179, 1186 (Ala.1985)(The language in Lockett and Eddings indicates that so long as the sentencer is not precluded from considering any mitigating factor, the requirements of the Constitution have been satisfied.). We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that the trial court did in fact consider Ferguson's offer of the mitigating evidence of his mental health, but gave that evidence little weight when compared against the other evidence that it had before it. These findings are also consistent with Whisenhant v. State, 370 So.2d 1080, 1095 (Ala.Crim.App.1979), because we agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the trial court did not incorrectly apply the standard for legal insanity when it considered Ferguson's mental health as a mitigating circumstance.