Opinion ID: 1942962
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: trial court rejection of mitigation

Text: Whether a mitigator has been established, and the weight to ascribe to it, are matters within the trial judge's discretion. Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415, 420 (Fla. 1990). In fact, we have stated that [a] trial court may reject a claim that a mitigating circumstance has been proven provided that the record contains competent substantial evidence to support the rejection. Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 646 (Fla.2000). When the asserted mitigating circumstance is based solely on expert testimony, the trial judge has even wider discretion because expert testimony is not binding. Walls v. State, 641 So.2d 381, 390 (Fla.1994). A trial court may reject mitigation based on expert testimony, even if that testimony is uncontroverted, where it is difficult to square with the other evidence in the case. Morton v. State, 789 So.2d 324, 330 (Fla.2001). As we stated in Walls, [o]pinion testimony gains its greatest force to the degree it is supported by the facts at hand, and its weight diminishes to the degree such support is lacking. A debatable link between fact and opinion relevant to a mitigating factor usually means, at most, that a question exists for judge and jury to resolve. 641 So.2d at 390-91. The majority concludes that the evidence offered by the State to counter this mitigation evidence can be squared with the expert testimonies. Majority op. at 1005. As I demonstrate below, however, the evidence presented at least made that factor debatable. Therefore, the judge was well within his discretion in rejecting it.