## Facts

- Steven Raymond Davis pleaded guilty to murder and faced a capital penalty proceeding under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c to determine death or life imprisonment with a 30-year parole ineligibility period.
- Defense counsel sought to present mitigation testimony from criminologist Dr. Marvin E. Wolfgang under the catch-all mitigator, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(5)(h).
- Wolfgang did not personally examine Davis; he prepared an opinion from empirical studies on age, criminal careers, and recidivism.
- The proffered testimony included that offenders matching Davis’s general profile who serve lengthy prison terms rarely commit serious crimes after release; that Davis would be about 57 upon potential release; that men ages 55–59 are unlikely to commit murder; and that first-degree murder offenders have comparatively low recidivism rates.
- The State moved to exclude the testimony as not tied to a statutory mitigating factor and as not individualized to Davis.
- The trial court excluded the testimony, reasoning that statistical predictions did not show anything about Davis’s individual character.
- The Appellate Division granted interlocutory review and reversed, finding the testimony admissible as mitigation.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted leave to appeal the interlocutory ruling to decide the admissibility issue before completion of the penalty proceeding.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a capital sentencing proceeding under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c, a defendant may introduce expert statistical evidence on recidivism and age-crime patterns—without a personal examination—to support mitigation under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(5)(h).
2. Whether the impersonal, group-based nature of such expert testimony makes it categorically irrelevant to the defendant’s “character or record” for purposes of the catch-all mitigator.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division and held the proffered expert statistical testimony admissible as potential mitigation under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(5)(h).
- The Court rejected a categorical rule excluding statistical, non-clinical evidence solely because it is derived from group data rather than an individualized examination.
- The Court held that concerns about the impersonal basis of the testimony generally bear on weight, not admissibility.
- The Court emphasized that ordinary evidentiary requirements (including competence, relevance, and reliability) still govern admission and remain subject to trial-court control.

## Legal Principles

- The catch-all mitigator in N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(5)(h) permits consideration of “any other factor” relevant to the defendant’s character or record or to the offense’s circumstances, and is to be read broadly in capital sentencing.
- Expert testimony addressing future dangerousness and likelihood of recidivism can relate to “character,” even when grounded in empirical studies and demographic patterns rather than a personal clinical evaluation.
- Statistical evidence offered in mitigation may not be excluded solely because it is statistical; methodological and relevance objections are addressed through standard evidentiary gatekeeping and adversarial testing.

## Conclusion

The court held that, in a capital penalty phase, a defendant may present competent expert testimony based on empirical recidivism and age-crime data as catch-all mitigation, and that the statistical basis of the opinion affects weight rather than categorical admissibility.


State v. Davis, 477 A.2d 308 (N.J. 1984)