Opinion ID: 1210792
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dysfunctional Family History

Text: ¶ 50 Greene's parents separated when he was thirteen, and Greene lived primarily with his father, a trapper, who migrated between Arizona and Washington. During this time, he had little formal education. In 1983, when he turned seventeen, he moved back to Washington to live with his mother. Greene's mother testified that she was hog wild and into the drugs and the drinking and the partying when Greene returned. Tr. of July 29, 1996, at 47. She admitted contributing to Greene's problems with methamphetamine. ¶ 51 This court has held that family background may be a substantial mitigating circumstance when it is shown to have some connection with the defendant's offense-related conduct. State v. Towery, 186 Ariz. 168, 189, 920 P.2d 290, 311 (1996), cert. denied,  U.S. , 117 S.Ct. 985, 136 L.Ed.2d 867 (1997). Greene's mother introduced him to methamphetamine, and encouraged, or at least failed to discourage, his use through her own open and flagrant use. But because adults have personal responsibility for their actions, adult offenders have a difficult burden of proving a connection between family background and offense-related conduct. See State v. Stokley, 182 Ariz. 505, 524, 898 P.2d 454, 473 (1995). At the time of the murder, Greene was 29 years old; he had had little or no contact with his mother in years. Greene's mother may have introduced him to drugs, but Greene failed to show how this influenced his behavior on the night of the murder. See Towery, 186 Ariz. at 189, 920 P.2d at 311. Thus, we do not find Greene's dysfunctional family history to be a mitigating circumstance.