The following excerpt is from Murdaugh v. Ryan, 2:09-CV-00831-FJM, No. 10-99020 (9th Cir. 2013):
The (G)(1) factor exists if the "defendant's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was significantly impaired but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution." Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-703(G)(1). Drug impairment can be a mitigating circumstance under the (G)(1) factor, but only if the defendant can show a connection between the drug use and the offense. See State v. Sansing, 77 P.3d 30, 37 (Ariz. 2003). Typically, testimony by an expert witness can establish this causal nexus. Id. The claim of drug impairment is undermined, though, if the evidence shows "the defendant took steps to avoid prosecution shortly after the murder, or when it appears that intoxication did not overwhelm the defendant's ability to control his physical behavior." Id. (quoting State v. Rienhardt, 951 P.2d 454, 466-67 (Ariz. 1997) (en banc)).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.