 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Payne11/20/2002
commit an armed robbery, and during the course of that armed robbery shot and killed somebody. And for those reasons, this court doesn't find that [the defendant's] low serotonin level affected his ability to commit the crime of an aggravated robbery or attempted aggravated robbery , and then during the course of that he killed [the victim].
So I don't find that there are any substantial grounds, and the key word there being substantial grounds, that excuse or justify his conduct.
In rejecting the defendant's serotonin level as a physical or mental condition that reduced his culpability for the crime, the trial court stated:
Again, even though understanding and accepting the testimony of the doctor in this case about the low serotonin level, I don't find that was a factor that affected or entered into the commission of this offense, based on the proof that was presented, that there was anything that caused -- from his low serotonin level that caused him to commit the offense of an attempted especially aggravated robbery and the murder. I just don't find from the proof that was sufficiently shown, so I'm not going to consider that.
The trial court used similar reasoning to reject the serotonin evidence as either a substantial ground that excused the defendant's conduct, or a mental condition that significantly reduced his culpability for second degree murder, finding that the defendant's actions in shooting the victim first in one leg, then in the other leg, and finally in the head, did "not appear to . . . be impulse actions," or a killing committed in a "los of control manner," but appeared instead to be "a planned, albeit maybe short, but calculated effort, knowing killing, if you will, of an individual."
The defendant contends that by finding he committed the offenses in a cool and calculated manner rather than impulsively, the trial court contradicted the verdict of the jury which, by acquitting him of premeditated and felony murder, " learly . . . found that actions were not cool, calculated, deliberate and premeditated." We disagree. Nothing in the jury's verdicts contradicts the trial court's finding that the crimes were not impulsive, and that the defendant's serotonin level therefore played no role in their commission. Although the jury rejected premeditated or felony murder, they convicted the defendant of second degree murder, "a knowing killing of another," rejecting his claim that the killing occurred in a state of passion produced by adequate provocation. The trial court correctly noted that the evidence at trial did not show the crimes to have been committed on impulse, as well as Dr. Rossby's testimony that a crime must be impulsive in order for an individual's serotonin level to have played any role in its commission. We, therefore, conclude that the trial court did not err by failing to apply evidence of the defendant's low serotonin level as a mitigating factor to reduce the defendant's sentences from the maximum in the range.
In sum, we conclude that, although the trial court erroneously applied enhancement factor (16) to the defendant's sentence for attempted especially aggravated robbery, it did not err in failing to apply the defendant's serotonin level as a factor in mitigation. We further conclude that the remaining enhancement factors that were appropriately applied, combined with the absence of mitigating factors, justify the maximum sentences imposed in this case.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing authorities and reasoning, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|