Opinion ID: 2621170
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Defendant's Childhood

Text: ¶ 38 The defendant proffered his difficult childhood and family background as non-statutory mitigating circumstances. At sentencing, the judge held that the defendant had established by a preponderance of the evidence that he had a difficult childhood and family background but declined to give the evidence significant mitigating weight because there [was] nothing in the defendant's childhood or family background that provides a causal link to the horrific crime committed. The defendant argues the judge's refusal to give the evidence significant weight due to a lack of a causal nexus violates his due process and Eighth Amendment rights under Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982); and Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). ¶ 39 We have previously considered and rejected this argument. We have interpreted Penry, Eddings, and Lockett as directing the sentencing judge to consider evidence proffered for mitigation. State v. Djerf, 191 Ariz. 583, 598 ¶ 61, 959 P.2d 1274, 1289 ¶ 61 (1998)(with respect to mitigating evidence, the sentencing judge is entitled to give it the weight it deserves); see also State v. Towery, 186 Ariz. 168, 189, 920 P.2d 290, 311 (1996) (The sentencer therefore must consider the defendant's upbringing if proffered but is not required to give it significant mitigating weight.). However, [h]ow much weight should be given proffered mitigating factors is a matter within the sound discretion of the sentencing judge. Towery, 186 Ariz. at 189, 920 P.2d at 311. ¶ 40 Arizona law states that a difficult family background is not relevant unless the defendant can establish that his family experience is linked to his criminal behavior. Djerf, 191 Ariz. at 598 ¶ 61, 959 P.2d at 1289 ¶ 61; see also State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127, 151 ¶ 110, 14 P.3d 997, 1021 ¶ 110 (2000)(Family dysfunction can be mitigating only when actual causation is demonstrated between early abuses suffered and the defendant's subsequent acts.); Towery, 186 Ariz. at 189, 920 P.2d at 311 (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. Wallace, 160 Ariz. 424, 427, 773 P.2d 983, 986 (1989) (A difficult family background is a relevant mitigating circumstance if a defendant can show that something in that background had an effect or impact on his behavior that was beyond the defendant's control.). No testimony suggested that the defendant's childhood affected his behavior on the day of the murder. The evidence on this subject did not prove a loss of impulse control or explain what caused him to kill. Towery, 186 Ariz. at 189, 920 P.2d at 311. The sentencing judge properly considered the defendant's difficult childhood as a non-statutory mitigating circumstance and gave the evidence appropriate weight.