 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Harris5/23/2005
t suggested that the defendant suffered from depression and bipolar illness. According to Nichols' testimony, the defendant showed signs of depression about six years prior to committing the criminal offenses. In June 2002, the defendant started drinking heavily, then "once [the defendant] was arrested in December, [he showed] more overt signs of psychosis, hallucinations, having some of these symptoms prior to December." Dr. Nichols stated that he believed that the defendant was intoxicated prior to committing the offenses based on the fact that the defendant told him that "he and Ms. Covington consumed about a gallon of whiskey together. . . had several Xanax" prior to the evening when his brother came over, "then they started drinking again." Dr. Nichols testified that the defendant's family had a history of bipolar illness and that the defendant was presently treated with antipsychotic and antidepressant medications. Dr. Nichols rendered his opinion that he believed the defendants's bipolar illness was a contributing factor to the crime involved.
At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated the following:
The Court finds there are no statutory mitigating factors to apply. I do consider the testimony heard hear today and the report that was filed by Dr. Nichols, but the Court believes that neither depression nor bipolar excuses the acts in this case of shooting one person in the head and another in the neck. Drinking and consuming drugs together is a choice and doesn't excuse the acts. The act of going back into the house to get the gun, the shooting at close range, a contact wound to the head, then fleeing to Texas, all indicate purposeful acts on the part of the defendant.
So the Court finds that the enhancing factors greatly outweigh the mitigating factors.
In this case, the record establishes that the trial court considered the defendant's mitigation evidence but declined to give it weight. Although the trial court did not specifically assign weight to the defendant's mitigating evidence, the trial court sufficiently articulated its reasons for disregarding the mitigating evidence and gave indication that the enhancing factors greatly outweighed the mitigating factors. Our review of the evidence supports the trial court's decision.
First, we note that the burden of proving applicable mitigating factors rests on the defendant. See State v. Joshua Aaron Roush, No. E2002-00313-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 354465 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Feb. 18, 2003), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. June 30, 2003). The defendant must not only establish the presence of a mental condition significantly reducing culpability, but also a causal nexus between his condition and the offense charged. See State v. Robert James Yoreck, III, No. M2004-01289-CCA-RM-CD, 2003 WL 23613823, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, June 29, 2004); State v. Betty W. Norman, No. 01C01-9805-CC-00230, 1999 WL 695565, at *11 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Sept. 9, 1999). Although the defendant submitted some evidence of bipolar illness and depression, the evidence submitted did not support how the defendant's mental condition reduced his culpability on the date he knowingly shot two victims. Furthermore, the evidence submitted appears to support the fact that the defendant was intoxicated during the time he committed the offenses rather than suffering from a mental condition. With regard to the application of mitigating factor (8), voluntary use of intoxicants does not fall within the purview of this factor. See Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 40-35-113(8). Therefore, the defendant's evidence supporting his volitional use of intoxicants at the time the offenses were committed fails to suppor
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|