Court Opinion

ID: 9539512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:05:21.598185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:54.890959
License: Public Domain

Andersen, J.
(concurring) — I concur in the majority opinion's conclusion that a defendant in a capital case may waive his or her right of general review and in the further conclusion that the jury's sentencing decision in this case should be sustained.
I write separately only to make clear that once a competent defendant has knowingly made the decision to waive his or her right to introduce mitigating circumstances, an appellate court may not hear and weigh mitigating circumstances first offered during the appeal process.
The majority opinion notes that the defendant Dodd chose not to present mitigating evidence, but then goes on to list the evidence amici believe would have been offered. Majority opinion, at 25. The majority opinion properly notes that the mere presence of mitigating factors does not require leniency, but then states "[t]he jury correctly concluded here that the aggravating circumstances of this crime overwhelm any mitigating factors." Majority opinion, at 25. The problem is that this jury did not hear any mitigating factors and to the extent this implies that we should review the jury's decision as if the proffered mitigating evidence had been *30heard, I disagree; there is no basis in the law for such an approach. Since we would not allow a defendant to first raise mitigating circumstances on appeal, I fail to see why this court should consider mitigating evidence amici think would have been offered.