Where an offender has sustained a brain injury from the victim's provocative assault, the brain injury evidence must inform the subjective assessment of provocation — including the significance of any temporal gap between the provocative act and the offending — and provocation must be separately addressed as a distinct mitigatory factor from any Verdins discount for impaired mental functioning. The mere failure to mention remorse in sentencing remarks does not establish error where the evidence of remorse was limited and qualified.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.