Opinion ID: 77561
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sentencing Hearings

Text: 22 After denying Stewart's motion for a new trial, the state trial court held two sentencing hearings. At the September 30, 1986 hearing, counsel for both parties presented oral arguments as to Stewart's sentence. Stewart's trial counsel argued that a death sentence was inappropriate given Dr. Afield's testimony about Stewart's severe emotional disturbance and substantial impairment in his ability to conform his conduct to the law. In response, the state contended that the trial court should follow the jury's recommendation based on Stewart's prior violent felony convictions. The state also presented the testimony of the victim Harris's father, who described Harris as a caring, compassionate son and asked the trial court to impose a death sentence. The state court declared that sentencing would be imposed at a later hearing. 23 The state court held the next hearing on October 3, 1986. 7 In sentencing Stewart for the Harris murder, the state court found sufficient evidence of two aggravating factors: (1) Stewart's prior convictions for violent felonies; and (2) the murder was committed while Stewart was engaged in a robbery. 24 The state trial court also found three statutory mitigating factors and a catch-all mitigating factor. First, the state court determined that Stewart was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance when he committed the murder. The state court found that the medical evidence indicated extreme disturbance, but it concluded that Stewart was in sufficient control of his faculties when he decided to shoot Harris and Acosta. Accordingly, the state court gave this mitigating factor only slight weight. 25 Second, the state trial court found that Stewart had diminished capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct. Based on the medical evidence, the state court accorded little weight to this mitigating factor. Third, the state court considered Stewart's age at the time of the murder (twenty-one years old) to be a mitigating factor, but it also gave this factor little weight. Lastly, the state court found that Stewart suffered from childhood trauma at age thirteen, but it concluded that Stewart made the choice of committing crimes with full understanding of the consequences. 8 26 The state trial court concluded that the aggravating circumstances far outweigh[ed] the mitigating circumstances and imposed a death sentence for the murder conviction, as recommended by the jury. The state court then imposed a life sentence for the armed robbery conviction 9 and consecutive fifteen-year sentences for the attempted murder of Acosta and arson convictions. 27 At the same hearing, the state trial court also imposed a second death sentence based on Stewart's first-degree murder conviction for the December 6, 1984 death of Ruben Diaz. Stewart's conviction for the Diaz murder followed his Harris murder conviction, so the Diaz murder conviction was not considered as an aggravating factor in the Harris trial. 10