Abdool v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the death penalty was proportionate where there were two aggravating factors, four statutory mitigating circumstances (age of nineteen at the - 37 - time of the crime, no significant history of criminal activity, and both statutory mental health mitigators
• holding death sentence proportionate where CCP and HAC were weighed against four statutory mitigating circumstances and forty-eight non-statutory mitigating circumstances
• holding death sentence proportionate where CCP and HAC were weighed against four statutory mitigating circumstances and forty-eight nonstatutory mitigating circumstances
• applying rule 3.220(d)(1)(B)(ii) to penalty phase proceedings and holding that appellant was required to provide the State with raw data from his mental health expert
• finding expert testimony regarding the defendant’s lack of remorse within the context of discussing the characteristics of antisocial personality disorder was not error
• finding expert testimony regarding the defendant’s lack of remorse within the context of discussing the characteristics of antisocial personality disorder was not error

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).