Opinion ID: 1375948
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Court's Consideration of all Mitigating Evidence

Text: Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in not listing, discussing, and rejecting possible mitigating circumstances other than the one it found under A.R.S. § 13-703(G)(1). Defendant argues that he offered evidence of the following, each of which may be a mitigating circumstance: his good conduct in prison, his potential for rehabilitation, his background and emotional character stemming from his Vietnam experience, the plea agreement offered by the state, and his mens rea ( i.e., that the state offered no evidence proving that Defendant intended to kill the victim). Defendant quotes State v. Leslie, 147 Ariz. 38, 50, 708 P.2d 719, 731 (1985), in stating, if [this court] cannot determine from the record whether the trial court considered all the relevant mitigating factors, the federal constitution compels us to remand the case for further explanation. He argues that, because the trial court failed to list or discuss any of these proffered factors, this court cannot determine from the record that it considered them. See Sochor v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 2114, 2122-23, 119 L.Ed.2d 326 (1992) (if United States Supreme Court cannot determine, from language of opinion, that state appellate court conducted harmless error analysis, Supreme Court will not presume that error by the trial court in finding existence of aggravating circumstance was cured by appellate consideration). While we continue to believe that trial judges should discuss all factors considered in mitigation, we have never required a sentencing judge to make detailed, exhaustive findings or cite every claim or nuance advanced by defendant or his counsel in argument. State v. McCall, 160 Ariz. 119, 125, 770 P.2d 1165, 1171 (1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1031, 110 S.Ct. 3289, 111 L.Ed.2d 798 (1990). We believe the record shows that the trial judge adequately identified and considered the primary mitigating circumstance raised by the evidence in this case  that Defendant's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired, in this case by years of alcohol abuse. [7] A.R.S. § 13-703(G)(1). We believe that, in this case, questions regarding other mitigating factors were insubstantial and did not warrant additional discussion. In fact, defense counsel made no argument regarding other such factors in his closing arguments. Thus, we find that the trial court did enumerate and discuss in the special verdict the relevant mitigating factor raised by the evidence and argued by Defendant.