Opinion ID: 2746860
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trevon Boyd

Text: Carolyn Boyd, Trevon Boyd‟s mother, testified that Trevon was 20 years old when he died. She described him as a beautiful and intelligent person who enjoyed writing music, sports, fishing, and dancing. When Carolyn learned of her son‟s death, she felt like a part of her was gone. She could not eat or sleep, and it was difficult to make the funeral arrangements. Carolyn missed everything about her son. She testified that her family “will never be whole, . . . again.” Holidays were difficult, and she thought about her son every day. Olive Burgess testified that Trevon Boyd was her cousin. According to Burgess, Boyd was a “sweet kid” growing up in a rough neighborhood. He meant everything to her. His death made her feel numb and the family still cried at night. The hardest thing for Burgess to do after Boyd‟s death was to explain it to her 27 children, who were all close to him. They found it difficult to cope with his death, and she missed his smile and thought of him every day. 4. Mitigating evidence offered by defendant The defense case in mitigation included evidence of defendant‟s family history and upbringing, as well as opinion testimony by three expert witnesses who described for the jury defendant‟s learning disabilities and his psychological, neurological, and intellectual dysfunction. The defense also presented evidence that defendant possessed a genetic condition that, when combined with childhood maltreatment, has been identified as a risk factor for antisocial behavior. a. Defendant’s upbringing and background Defendant‟s mother, Pearl Thomas, testified that she had a poor relationship with her own mother and ran away from home when she was 12 years old. She got into trouble and was sent to CYA when she was 15. She became a single mother at the age of 17 when she gave birth to defendant‟s older brother, who became known as “Big Sonny.” Thomas denied drinking alcohol, but admitted being a drug user, and taking barbiturates when defendant was conceived. Defendant‟s father was a professional boxer with whom Thomas had a short relationship. Defendant‟s father was a heroin addict and was not significantly involved in defendant‟s life. When defendant was a toddler, Thomas married Ronald Biggles. He was abusive to Thomas and often came home drunk. Biggles favored his own daughter over defendant and Big Sonny. He hit defendant. After Thomas left Biggles, she lived with James Wright, who disliked and hit defendant. Thomas testified she also hit and whipped defendant because that was the way she was raised. She did not know how to be a good mother. 28 Thomas supported her family with public welfare assistance and by stealing. She estimated that she had been arrested almost 50 times in her life and she was in and out of custody during defendant‟s childhood. When Thomas was in prison, defendant sometimes stayed with his grandmother, Amy Parks. According to Beverly Parks, who was Parks‟s daughter-in-law and defendant‟s aunt, Parks seemed to hate defendant and his sister Larhonda. She often drank and became “wild and . . . brutally violent.” Defendant suffered excessive beatings, almost every day, when he was staying in his grandmother‟s house. Parks also abused the children by calling them names. One time she scared defendant and Larhonda by turning off the lights and following them around with a long knife. She believed in voodoo and performed “curses” on people. She was described as being “evil” by both Beverly Parks and defendant‟s godmother, Linda Gavin. Gavin testified that Parks showed her evilness to “anyone she didn‟t like” and she particularly disliked defendant and his sister Larhonda. According to Gavin, Parks would sometimes call on the telephone and tell her to come get “these motherfuckers,” referring to defendant and his sister. Defendant was an energetic and very hyperactive child. He had learning disabilities and was sent to special-needs schools. Defendant was prescribed Ritalin, but his mother took him off the medication. He was bullied and picked on, particularly by one member of a local Crips gang. Defendant started getting into trouble at an early age. But one childhood friend of defendant‟s, Reginald Campbell, recalled an incident in which defendant jumped into the swimming pool and saved him from drowning. Several witnesses (Reginald Campbell, Linda Woods, a neighbor who watched defendant grow up, defendant‟s half sister Ralene, and his aunt Beverly Parks) testified about the rough neighborhood in which defendant grew up. It was filled with drugs and numerous gangs, which actively recruited members through 29 violence, including stabbings, carjackings, and shootings. The witnesses explained that to acquire protection in the neighborhood, a person had to join a gang. Defendant found protection by joining the Bloods gang to which his brother, Big Sonny, belonged. Big Sonny was a violent person and well known in the neighborhood. Defendant, however, idolized him and saw him as a father figure. Defendant was devastated when Big Sonny was killed in a gang shooting, which increased his hatred for Crips gang members. b. Expert witness testimony in mitigation Dr. Nancy Cowardin, who had a doctorate in educational psychology and special education, testified as an expert witness regarding learning disabilities. She assessed defendant by reviewing documents regarding his personal background, meeting with him and giving him current tests of his skills. She noted that defendant started needing remedial help in the first grade or shortly thereafter. He attended special-needs schools in grades eight and nine. In eighth grade, his individualized education program (IEP) included a dual diagnosis of being seriously emotionally disturbed and having learning disabilities with attention deficits. Defendant‟s IEP in ninth grade similarly assessed him as being seriously emotionally disturbed. According to Cowardin, defendant had a clear history of attention deficit disorder (ADD). His records from CYA indicated he was very impulsive and lacked sound decisionmaking skills. Cowardin performed a complete psychoeducational assessment of defendant and concluded his ADD was still present in adulthood, but was more subdued. She found that he had an auditory processing problem that could account for his learning disabilities in reading and writing at school. As an adult, defendant had improved his reading and written language scores, but not his math scores. Defendant‟s IQ was exactly average when verbal and nonverbal scores were combined, but he had large 30 deviations in some of the scores. Cowardin found that defendant had lapses in mature executive functions that control problem solving, decisionmaking, and adaptability under stress in typical adults. She concluded that defendant‟s disability profile may have led to some of his self-control problems. Dr. Arthur Kowell, a specialist in neurology, evaluated defendant‟s brain function. He interpreted a brain electrical activity mapping study or “BEAM” test conducted on defendant in August 2000. Three of the four parts of the test — the standard electroencephalogram, the electroencephalogram spectral analysis, and an auditory “evoked potential” test — had normal results. But the visual evoked potential test showed some abnormal functioning of defendant‟s brain in the vertex, the right parietal region, and the right frontal region. The vertex deals with motor behavior and initiation of activity. The right parietal region deals with sensory functions and the right frontal lobe deals with impulse control and executive functions. An abnormality in this last area might indicate the individual has a short temper or possibly a form of ADD. Kowell testified that the test was nonspecific as to the time of onset and the causation for any abnormality shown and that the test was not predictive of behavior. But Kowell concluded the test showed evidence of brain dysfunction. Dr. Kowell reviewed defendant‟s medical records, which included two positron emission tomography (PET) scans and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of defendant‟s brain. The results of a 1998 PET scan showed abnormalities, while the results of a followup MRI and a second PET scan in 2000 were normal. Kowell did not consider the latter tests to be inconsistent with his results. He testified that a neuropsychological workup done by Dr. Kyle Boone in 2002, which he reviewed, showed abnormalities consistent with Kowell‟s testing. Kowell noted Boone‟s opinion that defendant‟s decisionmaking skills were comparable to those of someone with mental retardation or borderline intelligence, 31 despite defendant‟s otherwise normal intelligence. Kowell stated that, according to Boone, defendant may lack the essential brain equipment to exert reasoned control over his behavior. Kowell also reviewed defendant‟s academic records, mental health records, and court records. He considered the historical evidence from defendant‟s records to be consistent with his finding of abnormal brain function in defendant. Dr. Carl Osborn, a forensic psychologist, testified that scientific studies had shown that childhood abuse and neglect, i.e., maltreatment, alters the brain chemistry and functioning in ways that can produce aggressive behavior and that these changes will persist into adulthood. According to Osborn, it had recently been shown that there is a powerful association with severe antisocial behavior later in life when childhood maltreatment combines with the presence of an inherited type of gene, the 3-repeat allele MAOA gene. Genetic testing of defendant showed that he had inherited the 3-repeat allele MAOA gene and, in Osborn‟s opinion, defendant had been severely maltreated as a child. Osborne testified that the 3 repeat allele MAOA gene is not a genetic defect, but is a risk factor.