State v. Kayer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that (F)(5) aggravation is established where pecuniary gain was a \cause\ of the murder
• stating that “personality or character disorders usually are not sufficient to satisfy [the (G)(1) ] statutory mitigator”
• holding that the defendant’s mental impairment “was not established as a nonstatutory mitigating factor” in part because “defendant offered no evidence to show the requisite causal nexus that mental impairment affected his judgment or his actions at the time of the murder”
• stating that a defendant has the “freedom not to cooperate with a mitigation specialist and thereby potentially limit the mitigation evidence that is offered”
• holding a defendant is allowed “not to cooperate with a mitigation specialist and thereby potentially limit the mitigation evidence that is offered”
• finding that a competent defendant may refuse to cooperate with the court-appointed mitigation specialist (citing Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U.S. 299, 306 & n. 4, 110 S.Ct. 1078, 108 L.Ed.2d 255 (1990

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).