 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. Robinson10/3/1991
04 S.E.2d 842, 843 (1991); State v. Artis, 325 N.C. 278, 313, 384 S.E.2d 470, 490 (1989), death sentence vacated, U.S. , 108 L. Ed. 2d 604 (1990).
The State suggests there was not enough evidence introduced to support a finding that defendant's mental age was "low" enough to be considered a mitigating circumstance. We disagree. Through the testimony of Dr. Sciara, a trained psychologist, defendant offered credible evidence that defendant was functioning in a mentally retarded range of intellect with an I.Q. that placed him in the lowest two percent of the population. Dr. Sciara, a clinical psychologist, testified at the sentencing proceeding that:
Dwight Robinson is functioning in a mentally retarded range of intellect. He has a full scale I.Q. of 69. An I.Q. at that level would put him in the lowest two percent of the population. That is, out of every 100 people, 98 would be smarter
than him, basically. At that level, he's functioning at about a fourth grade level, in terms of how he processes information, how he deals with facts, how he can use his intellect.
Although the State argues this testimony is contrary to that of a Dorothea Dix psychiatrist, we believe it is sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find that the defendant's mental age is below normal.
The State further suggests that even if credible evidence existed to support this circumstance, the jury had already taken the defendant's mental age into account when it unanimously found the existence of a statutory circumstance submitted to the jury, i.e., the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was impaired. N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000(f)(6) (1988).
The trial court gave the following instructions to the jury with regards to mitigating circumstance (f)(6):
You would find this mitigating circumstance if you find that the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol or suffering from a mental condition and that this impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law . . . .
(Emphasis added.) Accordingly, the jury did not necessarily consider the defendant's mental condition when deciding the (f)(6) circumstance; rather, it could have found impaired capacity based solely on the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's regular drug usage. Where there is evidence to support a mitigating circumstance on either of two grounds, and the jury is so instructed, an appellate court should not speculate as to which ground served as the basis of the jury's finding.
Furthermore, as we recently said in State v. Greene, N.C. , S.E.2d (1991), "each mitigating circumstance is a discrete circumstance. Each has its own meaning and effect." N.C. at , S.E.2d at . Although both circumstances under consideration in Greene were statutory, we believe the same reasoning applies in this case where one circumstance, impaired capacity, is statutory, and another circumstance, mental age, is nonstatutory.
Finally, the State suggests that the evidence of guilt and aggravating circumstances is so overwhelming in this case, that even
if there was credible evidence to support the mental age circumstance, no reasonable juror could balance the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and recommend life imprisonment instead of death. Again, we do not agree. As we said in McKoy, "it would be a rare case in which a McKoy error could be deemed harmless." McKoy, 327 N.C. at 44,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|