Opinion ID: 1372360
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: was the aggravating circumstance outweighed by the mitigating circumstance?

Text: The trial court found as a mitigating circumstance that defendant's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was significantly impaired, but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution. A.R.S. § 13-454(F)(1). This finding in mitigation was supported by the evidence. Dr. Joseph Richard Melendez, a psychiatrist, testified as follows: Q With reference to your evaluation, on page two of your report of August 2, 1978, you indicated that Bob Brookover had a  it says `pre traumatic,'  I presume your meant `post traumatic, probably of prenatal origin, subtle, neurological lesion.' With reference  A Pre traumatic would be in reference to the automobile accident that you commented about already. Q That's an accident which occurred I believe in late 1969? A Yes. Q Then you determined that apparently he had a neurological lesion? A Pre existing lesion. Q Of what clinical significance is that? A The character of the lesion is such that it would be difficult for Mr. Brookover or anyone with this particular kind of lesion to undergo normal character development. Q Can you expand on that? A The reason being is that the brain system, neurological system is organized in such a manner that information that enters the nervous system cannot be integrated in a smooth, accurate manner, nor can it be stored in an accurate manner. Q Can that also create emotional disturbances? A Yes. Secondarily it frequently does. In our experience, the reason that I did take this degree of testing with Mr. Brookover, recent literature indicates that at least a 50 to 60 per cent of individuals of this particular situation suffered from this type of lesion and it has a tendency to lead them in the direction of anti social or asocial behavior. And: Q Do you feel then that in your opinion, or do you have an opinion then as to whether or not, again based on your examination of Mr. Brookover, whether or not at the time of the homicide he incurred any loss of touch with reality? A Not in the legal sense. Q In a psychiatric sense then? A In the psychiatric sense, a relinquishment of one's self autonomy, yes. Q Would it be fair to say that this capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the acts to conform his acts to requirement of law were not so impaired as to constitute a defense to a murder prosecution, but were nevertheless significantly impaired. Would that be a fair statement? A Yes. Please let me make it clear that this is strictly in the legal sense. I think from my own professional opinion that individuals like this, psychiatrically, one must consider this a true suspension of reality, but as I understand the legal test, no. The statute reads: D. In determining whether to impose a sentence of death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole until the defendant has served twenty-five calendar years, the court shall take into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances enumerated in subsections E and F and shall impose a sentence of death if the court finds one or more of the aggravating circumstances enumerated in subsection E and that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. A.R.S. § 13-454(D). The statute does not require that the number of aggravating circumstances be weighed against the number of mitigating circumstances. One mitigating circumstance, for example, may be sufficiently substantial to outweigh two aggravating circumstances. The converse is also true  one aggravating circumstance could be so substantial that two or more mitigating circumstances would not be sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. A.R.S. § 13-454(D). Both the trial court and this court then must weigh the mitigating circumstances against the aggravating circumstances to determine if leniency is required:    the gravity of the death penalty requires that we painstakingly examine the record to determine whether it has been erroneously imposed. (citation omitted) Furthermore, because A.R.S. § 13-454 sets out the factors which must be found and considered by the sentencing court, we necessarily undertake an independent review of the facts that establish the presence or absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances (citation omitted). We must determine for ourselves if the latter outweigh the former when we find both to be present. State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186, 196, 560 P.2d 41, 51 (1976). We believe that defendant's mental condition was not only a mitigating factor, but a major and contributing cause of his conduct which was sufficiently substantial to outweigh the aggravating factor of defendant's prior conviction. Under the circumstances, leniency is mandated. The imposition of the death penalty is set aside and the defendant's sentence is reduced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 25 calendar years from the date of sentencing herein. In all other respects, the verdict and judgment are affirmed. STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and HAYS, HOLOHAN and GORDON, JJ., concurring.