People v. Thompson (222 Ill. 2d 1, 2006)

CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS

delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Justices Freeman, Garman, and Karmeier concurred in the judgment and opinion.

Justice Fitzgerald specially concurred.

Justice McMorrow dissented, with opinion.

Justice Kilbride took no part in the decision.

OPINION

Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Stark County, defendant, Curtis A. Thompson, was convicted of three counts of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9—1(a) (West 2002)) for killing three persons. Defendant was also convicted of one count of home invasion (720 ILCS 5/12—11(a)(5) (West 2002)), two counts of attempted first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9—1(a), 8—4(a) (West 2002)), three counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/24—1.2(a)(3) (West 2002)), one count of disarming a police officer (720 ILCS 5/31—la (West 2002)), and one count of criminal damage to property (720 ILCS 5/21 — l(l)(a) (West 2002)). Defendant thereafter waived his right to a jury at sentencing. Following a death penalty hearing, the trial court found defendant eligible for the death penalty based on three factors: defendant had murdered a police officer, he had murdered two or more persons, and two of the murders had occurred during the course of a home invasion. After hearing evidence in aggravation and mitigation, the trial court concluded that there were no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude imposition of the death penalty. Accordingly, the trial court sentenced defendant to death on each of the first degree murder convictions. The trial court also sentenced defendant to terms of imprisonment of 50 years on each of the attempted murder convictions, 30 years for home invasion, 15 years for aggravated discharge of a firearm, and 3 years for criminal damage to property, all sentences to run concurrently. The court did not impose sentence on two of the aggravated discharge of a firearm counts, finding that it was precluded from doing so by the one-act, one-crime rule. Defendant’s appeal was brought directly to this court because he was sentenced to death. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 4(b); 134 Ill. 2d R 603.

Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him, and he raises no issues with respect to the guilt/innocence phase of his trial. Instead, defendant raises three issues challenging his sentence. The first issue contests his death sentence as being excessive in light of the aggravation and mitigation presented at the penalty phase of his sentencing hearing. Defendant’s two remaining issues pertain to the constitutionality of the death penalty.

BACKGROUND

We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case. Because the resolution of the principal issue raised is largely dependent on the weight of the evidence in aggravation and mitigation, we will set forth a comprehensive summary of the evidence adduced at defendant’s lengthy trial and sentencing proceedings.

At the guilt phase of defendant’s trial, the State presented testimony showing that defendant armed himself with a sawed-off shotgun and went on a shooting spree, first killing a police officer and then two neighbors in the presence of their 10-year-old daughter. After killing the officer and two neighbors, defendant drove through town and engaged other police officers in a low-speed chase before opening fire on the officers.

Shirley Brown was the first witness called by the State at defendant’s trial. She testified that on the evening of March 22, 2002, she was on duty in her employment as a dispatcher for the Stark County sheriffs department. Deputy Adam Streicher was also on duty that evening and in uniform. Streicher came to the station, checked the active warrant file and ran computer checks on outstanding warrants. Streicher left the station shortly after 7 p.m. in his squad car and began running license plate checks. At some point, he called Brown and asked for the phone number for defendant’s residence. When records showed that the number was unavailable, Streicher asked Brown for information on an outstanding warrant against defendant. Brown informed Streicher that the percentage applied for the warrant required payment of $100. Streicher signed off and was never heard from again. Brown grew concerned for the deputy, but her repeated attempts to radio him for status were unavailing.

James Batey testified that around 7 p.m. on March 22, 2002, he stepped outside the front door of his house to watch a Stark County sheriffs deputy in a squad car run license-plate checks on vehicles parked on the street. The officer parked his squad car in front of defendant’s house, which was one house over from Batey’s house. Batey observed the officer standing at defendant’s front door with his hands at his side. As Batey turned and opened the door to his house, he heard a loud shot that “sounded like an M-80.” He then saw defendant look toward the ground and nudge something with his foot. At that point, Batey moved closer and established eye contact with defendant. Batey then ran into his house to put his shoes on. When he came back outside, he saw that the squad car that had been parked in front of defendant’s house was now speeding toward the property of James and Janet Giesenhagen. Batey watched the squad car slam into the Giesenhagens’ vehicle. Defendant emerged from the squad car, ran up to the door of the Giesenhagens’ home with a rifle in hand, and kicked the door in. Batey then heard a woman scream, followed by a gunshot. As Batey ran to his house, he heard another gunshot. Batey then loaded his family into their van in order to evacuate the area. As they drove past defendant’s house, they saw a slain sheriffs deputy lying in front of defendant’s house.

Marilyn Giesenhagen testified that she is the 71-year-old mother of James Giesenhagen and that she lived across the alley from her son. Sometime around 7 p.m. on March 22, 2002, she received a phone call from her granddaughter Ashley Giesenhagen, who is the daughter of James and Janet. Ashley said, “Grandma, come quick. Curt Thompson just killed my daddy and hurt my mommy.” Marilyn then went to the home. She found Janet on the kitchen floor, with her hand “blown off’ and having difficulty breathing. She found her son at the bottom of the basement stairs in a pool of blood.

Emergency Medical Technician Michael Jezierski testified that he was dispatched to the Giesenhagen home after receiving a call of a multiple-shooting incident. Upon arrival, Jezierski found that James Giesenhagen had a large amount of blood around his head, had no pulse and was not breathing. After determining that James was beyond medical help, Jezierski turned to Janet and found that her hand was amputated at the wrist and she had suffered multiple puncture wounds to her left upper torso.

Jason Rice testified that on the night of the murders he was driving home after having had dinner with his parents. As Rice drove through town, a squad car deliberately collided with his truck. When Rice exited his truck to check the damage, he recognized defendant sitting in the squad car. Rice was afraid of defendant from his past experience with him. Rice explained that he used to live next door to defendant, and defendant had a habit of glaring at and trying to intimidate people in town. Sometimes defendant would follow Rice through town in his vehicle. On one occasion in August 2001, some people were spinning their tires on the road near Rice’s home. Defendant came over to Rice’s front porch and blamed him for the incident. Defendant then threatened Rice with a club and told Rice that he “would bury [him] in a pine box.” Thus, on the night of March 22, 2002, Rice fled the scene of the collision with the squad car when he saw defendant sitting inside it. On cross-examination, Rice admitted that he had lit off a bottle rocket near defendant’s house before defendant came to Rice’s porch on the night of their encounter in August 2001.

Bradford Police Officer Mark James testified that after hearing a radio report of gunshots at Deputy Streicher’s last-known location, James went to that neighborhood and immediately encountered defendant driving Streicher’s vehicle. James put his vehicle in reverse, and the Streicher vehicle inched toward him at about five miles per hour. As this continued, it appeared at one point that defendant was going to ram James’ vehicle. James picked up speed in reverse until other officers were in position; he then stopped in order to block the roadway. At that point, defendant rammed James’ car. James exited his vehicle and slowly approached defendant, who could not be seen because of the now-crumpled hood on Streicher’s squad car. James repeatedly commanded defendant out of the vehicle, and on the third such command, defendant shot at James through the passenger-side window. James took cover and returned fire. Within the next several minutes, other officers arrived at the scene to provide backup. Jimmy Di-son, the Stark County chief deputy sheriff, eventually pulled defendant out of the squad car and handcuffed him.

Toulon Police Chief Robert Taylor testified that he and Officer Brian Rewerts responded to the scene and observed James’ vehicle proceeding in reverse as it was being pursued by Streicher’s squad car. Taylor and Rewerts were driving separate vehicles. They followed defendant as he drove toward James. When Officer James stopped in front of defendant, Taylor and Rewerts blocked the road from behind. Taylor exited his vehicle and observed defendant shooting at James. Taylor stood there for a couple of seconds, felt something strike him, and realized that he too was under attack. Taylor eventually placed himself in position for a clear shot at the top of defendant’s head. Taylor fired one quick shot, and there was no more gunfire that night. Within a few seconds, Chief Deputy Dison arrived and pulled defendant from Streicher’s vehicle.

On cross-examination, Chief Taylor noted that he had known defendant since at least 1993 because of defendant’s prior contacts with the police department. Taylor explained that on a few occasions defendant had tailgated police officers or swerved his vehicle at them.

Brian Rewerts, an officer with the police department in Wyoming, Illinois, testified that he helped block the road from behind defendant. When Rewerts exited his vehicle, he realized that shots were being fired by defendant from Streicher’s vehicle. Rewerts attempted to move his vehicle closer to defendant, but was unable to do so because his back tires had been shot out. Rewerts watched Dison remove a wounded defendant from the vehicle, along with a sawed-off shotgun and handgun taken from defendant’s lap. Rewerts noted that in addition to the damage to his tires, his vehicle had two gunshot holes in the passenger-side doors.

Chief Deputy Jimmy Dison testified that after he disarmed defendant and removed him from the Stark County police vehicle, his thoughts turned to the plight of Deputy Streicher. Dison and the other officers ran to defendant’s house and found Streicher’s dead body lying on the ground in front of defendant’s house outside the closed front door.

Dison further testified that in December of 2001, he went to defendant’s home wearing his uniform and driving a marked squad car. On that occasion, Dison walked up to defendant and said, “Curt, we have got a warrant for you. It’s a hundred dollars bond. I will give you a week to get the money and come up and post bond on the warrant.” Initially, defendant did not respond, but as Dison turned to leave, defendant said, “You will have to come back and get me.”

On cross-examination, Dison testified that the warrant was issued for the purpose of revoking probation for defendant’s failure to pay court costs in a case in which defendant was convicted for assaulting Joe Tracey.

Lee Ellington, a nurse at St. Francis Hospital in Peoria, Illinois, testified that defendant was a patient in her care on March 30, 2002, eight days after the murders. At one point that day, defendant admitted that he had shot the victims. The next day, defendant told Ellington that “he didn’t mean to shoot the woman, all she had to do was put a tourniquet on her arm but the bitch died anyway.” Defendant also said that “a lot more people were going to get it when he got out.” Later on that same day, defendant told Ellington that he was “sorry the child had to see it, but all she had to do was close her eyes.” Defendant was not under any medication when he made these statements.

The forensic and crime-scene-investigation evidence revealed that Deputy Streicher died from a shotgun wound, delivered at close range to the neck and upper chest. Janet Giesenhagen died from a massive shotgun wound delivered at close range to her arms and chest that caused major damage to her entire upper torso and resulted in pellet fragments penetrating her chest and lungs and severing her right hand. James Giesenhagen died from a gunshot blast inflicted at intermediate range to the face, neck and chest.

After concluding its case in chief, the State rested, and defendant raised an insanity defense. Defendant presented the testimony of a number of witnesses, along with two mental health experts — Drs. John Day and Robert Chapman — to support his defense. The State presented the psychiatric testimony of Dr. Andrew Kowalkowski to rebut the defense.

The defense first called Joseph Tracey, who testified that he began working for James Giesenhagen in the Giesenhagens’ heating and air-conditioning business about five years before the murders. Tracey’s duties required him to sometimes work in an alley behind the Giesenhagens’ home. Defendant would often drive past and stare hatefully at Tracey, even though Tracey himself never had any previous history with defendant. The Giesenhagens, however, did have a history with defendant, as they had filed a lawsuit against him some years earlier. On one of these occasions when defendant drove past, he yelled to Janet Giesenhagen that “they had better stop harassing him or he would get even.”

Tracey recalled an incident where he was driving on a highway about seven miles southwest of Toulon, while looking for a location where he was to bid on a construction job. Defendant came down the road in his truck and began following Tracey. Defendant passed Tracey, blocked the intersection ahead, exited his truck and proceeded toward Tracey’s vehicle, holding a hammer. Defendant told Tracey that he was “going to beat the shit out of [him].” Tracey eventually drove in the ditch around defendant’s truck and continued on his way. He later called the sheriff’s department to report the incident. Defendant was eventually brought to trial over the matter, convicted and ordered not to have any contact with Tracey. Nonetheless, about two months later, defendant began driving by Tracey’s house and past him while he worked in the alley behind the Giesenhagen house.

Tracey also had two other encounters with defendant. In February of 2000, Tracey was shopping in a grocery store in Toulon. Defendant began following Tracey through the aisles, trying to intimidate him. Defendant then said to him, “You son of a bitch, you better stay out of my business or I am going to get you.” In March 2002, defendant briefly blocked Tracey’s van at an intersection in downtown Toulon.

On cross-examination, Tracey stated that the Giesenhagens routinely left scrap metal and other business-related items in the back of their property. When defendant drove through the alley, he always stayed on the public way and never left his vehicle. With respect to the incident where defendant threatened Tracey with a hammer, Tracey acknowledged that he had had a hard time locating the jobsite and that he happened to drive past a piece of farm property defendant owned along the road. At the time, Tracey was driving a company van that identified the Giesenhagens’ business. Defendant did not actually try to hit him or the van with the hammer, and defendant never attempted to run him off the road. Defendant was convicted for assault over the offense. At sentencing on the charge, the incident at the grocery store was brought up, and defendant was ordered to stay away from Tracey and his family and was placed on probation for two years. Tracey also acknowledged that defendant did not threaten or even speak to him at the grocery store until after Tracey asked to use the store phone to call the police.

Lonny Dennison testified that he was the Stark County sheriff for 20 years — from 1982 to 2002. Dennison noted that during that time, he had “dealings with defendant that went real well and *** dealings where we would have words back and forth. If it didn’t go his way, then [defendant] was upset.” Dennison further noted that people would get into confrontations with defendant and then come to the sheriff’s office to complain. But most people did not want to sign a complaint. The Giesenhagens, however, did sue defendant over a dog bite. Defendant went to trial and was found “not guilty.”

On cross-examination, Dennison acknowledged that the dog-bite case was a civil suit. He noted that in the years after the case, defendant held a grudge against the Giesenhagens. Dennison also stated that defendant never came to him complaining about someone; it was always other people complaining about defendant’s behavior.

Angela Smith, a nurse at St. Francis Hospital who cared for defendant following the shootings, testified that defendant told her he “didn’t know what the big deal was” and that he had done “nothing wrong.” Defendant also told Smith that he had suffered for 30 years, but the victims had only suffered for 30 minutes.

Jerry Abbed testified that he has owned a grocery store in Toulon for the past 15 years. About six months before the murders, he saw defendant threatening Tracey at the store. Abbed put his hand on defendant’s shoulder and told him to “take it outside.” Defendant responded by telling Abbed not to push him. After the incident, defendant’s behavior toward Abbed completely changed. About a month later, defendant drove up to Abbed and yelled profanities at him. Defendant wanted to fight, so Abbed told him to get out of the truck and go to it. But defendant continued yelling and threatening until the police came five minutes later. This kind of behavior continued to the point where every time defendant saw Abbed he would swear at him and want to fight. About two weeks before the murders, defendant stopped his truck in front of the store and said to Abbed, “If you are man enough, follow me to the farm and I will kill you and nobody will find you there anyway.”

Donald St. John testified that he was a farmer in Toulon and saw defendant on a periodic basis in connection with farming-related matters. On one occasion, the two men compared physical ailments, and defendant said that he suspected some of his neighbors of “stealing.” St. John explained that defendant told him that one farmer would not sell defendant some heifers, but things were eventually patched up when the farmer sold them at a low price that pleased defendant. Furthermore, defendant never said that anyone was out to get him.

Under cross-examination, St. John admitted that all the incidents that defendant mentioned were real incidents and that they essentially amounted to a matter of people taking advantage of defendant in business transactions. For example, defendant was mad at a veterinarian that he had to pay for coming to help at the birth of a calf that died in the birthing process. St. John also acknowledged that defendant was capable of holding long-standing grudges.

Julian Hickman testified that he worked with defendant from 1969 until 1985. Although defendant was a hard worker, he was bitter and did not like authority. When Hickman became defendant’s boss, defendant’s attitude toward him “did not change much.” One time, defendant brought Hickman’s handicapped daughter a present while he was dressed as Santa Claus. On cross-examination, Hickman stated that defendant was fired nine different times from his job with the mining company, but he was able to get it back each time because of union rules.

Art Whitaker testified that he was 64 years old and had known defendant since they were in grade school together. He worked with defendant for a year in the early 1960s. He lost track of defendant for a number of years after that, but reestablished a relationship when defendant started doing work for Whitaker’s father-in-law. Whitaker noted one incident in which defendant was “shorted” on a deal involving cattle feed. Whitaker said that he knew defendant was right in this instance because the sellers admitted that they had shorted defendant.

On cross-examination, Whitaker stated that defendant held a grudge over being shorted on the cattle feed. Whitaker also recalled that one time he and defendant were visiting on the front porch of defendant’s house when the phone rang. Defendant’s wife answered and told defendant that James Giesenhagen was coming over to work on the furnace. Defendant then told Whitaker that he had to leave because Giesenhagen had a restraining order against defendant. Whitaker described defendant as a “normal” person.

The defense called clinical psychologist John Day, who testified that he conducted a psychological assessment of defendant, using two tests — the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Millón Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI). The first addresses clinical issues, the second personality issues. The MMPI results indicated that defendant had “interpersonal alienation,” which is difficulty relating to people “in the social realm.” Day explained that a number of defendant’s scores on this test exceeded the normal range and therefore became clinically significant. Defendant scored high in “paranoia, suspiciousness,” and this was his highest score of all those that were elevated above the normal range. Day noted that he would expect to see a score like that in less than 2% of the population.

Day stated that defendant had elevated scores on the MCMI in “paranoid ideation,” depression, and “avoidance of social situations.” Day explained that defendant is not “psychotic by any means, but just has a different frame of reference than a typical person.”

Day also testified that defendant discussed the murders with him during his evaluation. According to Day, defendant claimed that when the deputy came to serve the warrant, he entered through the door with a gun in hand and ordered defendant to put his shirt on. Defendant told Day that he knew that as part of his probation, he had been ordered to pay $15 a month for six to eight months, at which time the court would review his compliance in paying the fine. He also knew that he had not paid the required monthly payments and that the court had reviewed his noncompliance. When the officer came to his door, defendant had a shotgun sitting on a toolbox nearby. Defendant picked it up, and the deputy went back out the door. Defendant then went out the door with the shotgun. Defendant claimed that he shot the deputy because he believed the deputy was going to shoot him first, as he had pointed a gun at defendant’s chest. After shooting the deputy, defendant went back inside and put his shirt on. When he came outside, he took the deputy’s gun and squad car. He then went to the Giesenhagens’ home because he “already had a deputy so why not get them.” Defendant wanted Janet Giesenhagen to remember all the pain she had caused him when she sued him in the dog-bite case. Even though he had prevailed on the merits, it cost him $20,000 in legal bills, and the Giesenhagens had been “thumbing their nose at [him] for 15 years.” Defendant claimed that he did not intend to kill them, he only “wanted to maim” them. After shooting the Giesenhagens, defendant drove through town and the police eventually caught up with him. He exchanged gunfire and ended up wounded in the head. Defendant concluded his rendition by telling Day that “I am supposed to be such a bad ass that people wanted to try to get me upset,” but “I never swatted a fly unless it shit on me first.”

Day believed that defendant was suffering from two disorders: delusional disorder of a persecutory type and paranoid personality disorder. “Delusional disorder of a persecutory type” is characterized by a false belief system grounded in nonbizarre delusions because it is based upon things that can happen in everyday life, as opposed to things that are not possible. The persecutory type of nonbizarre delusion applies when the theme of the delusion involves the personal belief that the person is “being conspired against, cheated, spied on, followed, poisoned or drugged, maliciously maligned, harassed, or obstructed in the pursuit of long-term goals, meaning their own personal goals.” Day explained that even though there is no factual basis for thinking that any of those things are happening, the delusional person believes that they are. Day concluded that, on the day of the crimes, defendant suffered from a mental disease— delusional disorder of a persecutory type — that prevented him from appreciating the criminality of his conduct.

On cross-examination, Day admitted that he never asked defendant such specific things as who was conspiring against him, who was harassing or maligning him, how they were doing it, or what his long-term goals were. Day explained that he did not ask defendant to elaborate on these matters because this would have ruined their rapport and would have made defendant suspicious. Day further emphasized that he did not ask about the specifics of defendant’s beliefs because in making his diagnosis, he needed only to focus on the “themes of how [defendant] sees the world, not the yes or no facts.” He was not concerned with determining if there was a rational basis for believing that there was a conspiracy against defendant; instead he was concerned only with “the behavioral patterns that would be interpreted back into his personality style.”

Psychiatrist Robert Chapman also testified on behalf of defendant. Chapman conducted two diagnostic interviews of defendant and administered the MMPI to defendant. He determined from a review of defendant’s history that defendant’s mother was a self-centered and suspicious person who had abandoned defendant at eight years old after his father had died. Defendant then lived with a relative for a number years. Defendant reported that he did not have any significant history of behavioral problems in school. He quit school after the tenth grade and married at the age of 17. He had three grown children, who were all college educated.

Chapman found a consistent thread running through his interviews: defendant claimed that he was the victim of harassment and abuse by “the powers that be,” which included authority figures such as the police or anyone with power over him. In defendant’s mind, there was a conspiracy against him, with the ultimate goal of driving him away or killing him. Chapman opined that defendant shot Streicher because defendant “was in fear of his life, that could be described as *** mortal fear, that the people, the conspiracy, the 20 years or more of harassment and attempt to do him in had converged into that moment and there was a situation in which he was in mortal danger. They were here, they were after me, they have come, they’re over the wire, they’ve violated the perimeter, there [sic] in my house, this is it.” Furthermore, according to Chapman, defendant considered the Giesenhagens to be part of the “powers that be” because they had filed a lawsuit against him. It was as though the Giesenhagens “psychologically were standing right behind the officer.”

Chapman concluded that defendant suffered from a “delusional disorder, persecutory type.” Defendant’s condition was chronic, continued after his crimes, and was not lessening. The diagnostic criteria for this disorder required that the person suffering from it experience a nonbizarre delusion for a period of at least one month. Defendant met this criterion because he has believed that there has been a conspiracy against him for over 20 years. Chapman explained the difference between a bizarre and nonbizarre delusion. A bizarre delusion, which defendant did not have, is something that cannot occur in real life, and would include schizophrenia and thought disorders, such as “disorganized thought, hallucinations, and deteriorating life course function.” Defendant, in contrast, was able to raise and support a family, maintain some friends, lead a general law-abiding life and participate in the fabric of the community as much as his delusions would allow him. Chapman rejected the diagnosis of “antisocial personality disorder” because he felt that defendant did not meet the criteria, which required evidence of antisocial behavior in childhood, as well as criminal acts throughout his life that were designed to meet his own selfish ends. Chapman concluded that defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct on the date of the offenses.

Under cross-examination, Dr. Chapman catalogued defendant’s criminal history and said that it was consistent with his delusional belief system. In 1967, defendant punched a car dealer after bringing a car in for service. In 1971, he was convicted of disorderly conduct for fighting along a road next to the high school. In 1980, defendant fought with a neighbor, and in 1986, he was sued in two separate dog-bite cases — one brought by the Giesenhagens and one brought by Chad Boughan. In 1987, defendant hit his brother with a spade; defendant then went to the sheriffs department to tell them of the incident. In 1998, defendant wanted to fight Richard Hartley, a neighbor, because defendant had spread oil on the gravel of his property and he thought that Hartley had reported him over it.

According to Chapman, defendant said that on the day of the murders, he worked on his farm, returned home, ate dinner and began watching television. Defendant told Chapman that he did not “expect” the officer. Defendant never said that he was afraid that he was going to be shot or that there had been a “breach of the perimeter.” Chapman never asked defendant why he shot Officer Streicher. Conclusions about these things were inferred by Chapman on his own. Chapman acknowledged that when defendant referred to the “powers that be,” he identified only the police, the sheriff and the State’s Attorney. Chapman did not record anywhere in his written report that defendant had told him that the Giesenhagens were part of the “powers that be.” Chapman acknowledged that defendant had told him that he had been suspended from school “one or more times” and had been in fights as a youth. When asked about the fights, defendant said that he had been picked on.

Chapman admitted that after his first interview with defendant, he had no firm diagnosis, but had written down “paranoid personality” and not “delusional disorder.” He explained that after he discussed the case with defense lawyers and Dr. Day and reviewed Day’s findings, he went back to examine defendant again to look for “missing information.” He further explained that he was not convinced at that point that defendant had an “organized delusional system in place” so as to rule out the diagnosis of delusional disorder. At the second examination, defendant was more cooperative. Chapman admitted that defendant did not specify any incidents close in time to March 22, 2002, when defendant felt that he had been followed, maligned or harassed. The only incident Chapman recorded involved a time when a police officer stopped along the road to “harass” defendant’s children and that occurred well over 20 years before. Chapman did not ask defendant about any of the facts surrounding the murders themselves during the second interview or why he shot Deputy Streicher and the Giesenhagens.

Chapman was asked “why [defendant] went over to the Giesenhagens and broke into their home if he was in mortal fear of his life?” Chapman responded that defendant “was in mortal fear when the officer was there,” but then added that defendant did not tell him that, he merely assumed it from the clinical evidence. Chapman further stated that he was unsure as to whether defendant was actually in fear of the Giesenhagens. Chapman admitted that he did not ask defendant why he went over to the Giesenhagen home and initiated his aggressive action.

Chapman acknowledged that there were at least two incidents where defendant either initiated contact with the “powers that be” to elicit their aid or accepted their aid when it was offered. In 1989, the sheriff brought defendant’s aging mother to defendant’s home because it was determined that she could no longer live on her own. The next day, defendant called the sheriff to come to his house to “be a witness for him,” while his mother recited where she wanted to live. Additionally, between 1986 and 1997, defendant was cordial with Shane Milroy, the Director of public works for Toulon. Defendant had some land use violations on his property, and defendant accepted Milroy’s offer to have a city truck move some items on his land. Chapman also acknowledged that Milroy was someone who had power over defendant and could be considered part of the “powers that be.” Chapman also admitted that documents showed that Milroy had testified on behalf of the Giesenhagens in the dog-bite case. Chapman opined, however, that defendant could get along with Milroy because Milroy never confronted defendant with an authoritative attitude.

Finally, Chapman testified that defendant did not meet the criteria for antisocial personality disorder. He acknowledged that the criteria for that disorder required a pervasive pattern of disregarding the rights of others, occurring from the age of 15, as indicated by three or more of the following: (1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; (2) deceitfulness as indicated by repeated lying, using aliases or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; (3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead; (4) irritability and aggressiveness as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; (5) reckless disregard for the safety of self or others; (6) consistent irresponsibility as indicated by repeated failure to sustain work behavior or honor financial obligations; (7) lack of remorse as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. Chapman, however, did not believe that defendant met any of these seven criteria.

The State called psychiatrist Andrew Kowalkowski, who was appointed by the court to examine defendant as to his sanity at the time of the murders. Dr. Kowalkowski reviewed the background and historical information on defendant, the police reports and the psychological report of Dr. Day. Kowalkowski then conducted an interview of defendant, where defendant discussed his personal and social history. Defendant also related his past criminal history and contact with law enforcement. Defendant recalled an incident that occurred when he was in his early twenties and his children were playing in the front yard. The sheriff pulled his vehicle in front of defendant’s house and asked why the children were playing in the yard. Defendant felt that the sheriff was being “a smart ass.” Defendant further remembered that he was once charged with aggravated battery and spent a week in jail. He was also fined for another incident, which he did not specify. Defendant also recalled a time when someone did not like the way he had parked his car, so defendant confronted him with a pick handle. Defendant described an ongoing problem he had over a large woodpile that he kept on his property to heat his home with. It had recently been started on fire by someone, and it was the second time it had happened. He believed that the first time it had been set on fire by Joseph Tracey, an employee of the Giesenhagens. Defendant was convicted of assault and placed on probation as a result of confronting Tracey over the woodpile situation. Defendant told Kowalkowski that when he “pissed the wrong way in their mind you came to court.” Defendant said that 10 or 15 years earlier he had gone to court over an allegation that one of his dogs had bitten one of the Giesenhagens’ children.

Defendant recounted to Kowalkowski that he had problems with other neighbors as well. James Rice and his roommate lived in a rented house next door. According to defendant, they had disturbed him by spinning donuts in the road and shooting out streetlights.

Dr. Kowalkowski asked defendant about the events that occurred on March 22, 2002. Defendant said that he did not remember anything that happened on the night in question from the time he sat down to watch television around 6 p.m. until he was in the hospital for a gunshot wound inflicted by police. Defendant also said that he understood the charges that had been brought against him, and when asked why he was in jail, defendant responded, “You tell me, I suppose it is the powers to he.” When Kowalkowski asked defendant to define what he meant by the phrase “the powers to be,” defendant responded that his “own words were nowhere in the 800 pages of documents he’s been allowed to review.” This was the only time that defendant used the phrase “the powers to be” during the interview. Defendant also acknowledged that he understood that he was on probation at the time the murders were committed. When asked if he knew it was wrong to kill someone, defendant responded, “I never killed a fly that did not shit on me first.”

Dr. Kowalkowski believed that defendant was exhibiting “malingering amnesia” in claiming not to recall the events that occurred on the night of the murders. Malingering amnesia is the intentional production of false or grossly exaggerated physical or psychological symptoms to avoid prosecution. Kowalkowski noted that defendant’s long- and short-term memory was intact, pointing out that defendant had told a hospital nurse that “he had shot that bitch in the hand so she would have a reminder for the next 20 or 30 years ***. She must have bled to death, didn’t know how to make a tourniquet.”

From his interview of defendant and review of the background information, Dr. Kowalkowski found no evidence of delusions, fixed false beliefs, or misinterpretation of external reality. Accordingly, Kowalkowski did not believe that defendant had any delusional disorder. Kowalkowski diagnosed defendant as having “paranoid personality disorder” and “antisocial personality disorder.” A personality disorder is demonstrated by a pattern of inner beliefs and behavior that cause an individual to markedly deviate from the expectations of society. According to Dr. Kowalkowski, these disorders are not significant mental disorders or defects; rather, they are behavior or conduct disorders.

Kowalkowski explained that paranoid personality disorder requires that a person have a pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others, interpreting their motives as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by at least four out of seven listed factors. Defendant satisfied four of the listed factors. First, he suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming or deceiving him. Second, he is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be maliciously used against him. Third, he persistently bears grudges and is unforgiving of insults, injuries and slights. Fourth, he perceives attacks on his character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack.

With respect to the antisocial personality disorder, Kowalkowski noted the seven criteria used to diagnose it, and that these criteria start in late adolescence and continue onward throughout life. Kowalkowski believed that this personality disorder manifested itself in defendant’s repeated acts that are grounds for arrests, his impulsiveness, his irritability and aggressiveness, his repeated failure to maintain consistent work behavior and his lack of remorse. Thus, defendant satisfied five of the seven criteria, with only three needed to make the diagnosis. Kowalkowski further explained that there was some evidence of this conduct disorder before the age of 15 because defendant had reported that “at times he got into the average number of fights that kids would get into.” When the doctor asked defendant to explain what he meant, defendant would not do so.

Dr. Kowalkowski concluded that defendant was not insane at the time he committed the murders. Defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect that would have caused him to lack substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct. Paranoid personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder are major disorders of behavior, not mental disorders. Dr. Kowalkowski disagreed with the assessments of Drs. Day and Chapman, both of whom concluded that defendant suffered from a “delusional disorder, persecutory type.” According to Dr. Kowalkowski, the threshold requirement for that kind of delusional disorder is nonbizarre delusions. Defendant did not suffer from any nonbizarre delusions, which entail a false belief. Defendant himself sought out law enforcement when he needed help — he called the sheriff for assistance over the matter of his mother’s guardianship and he asked for aid from Shane Milroy and was able to work cooperatively with him even though he was the director of public works for Toulon. Kowalkowski learned in an interview with defendant’s son that defendant had mounted a legal defense to the dog-bite case because of the “principle of the matter” and no mention was made of a conspiracy, persecution or a false belief. Kowalkowski noted that in contrast to relating delusions, defendant consistently related information about real events that had occurred in the past. These were not delusions. Instead, defendant had a personality disorder — an enduring pattern of inner beliefs and behavior that caused him to be suspicious of others and to interpret their motives as malevolent.

On cross-examination, Dr. Kowalkowski testified that he premised his finding that defendant had a conduct disorder based on defendant’s report of getting into fights as a child. Kowalkowski acknowledged that defendant had not told him that he had started the fights. Kowalkowski had assumed that defendant initiated them because he refused to discuss them further when asked to do so. When asked about his finding that defendant did not have delusions, Kowalkowski testified that if defendant thought people were following him when they were not, this would qualify as paranoia, not a delusion. When asked if defendant’s belief that the Giesenhagens had set his woodpile on fire was false, Kowalkowski replied that he did not know whether the Giesenhagens had set the woodpile on fire or not and, therefore, did not know if defendant’s thinking about it was false. Finally, Kowalkowski stated that defendant likely refused to discuss the crimes because of his paranoid personality disorder.

In rebuttal, defendant recalled Dr. Chapman, who testified that defendant does not meet the diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder because there is not enough information about defendant’s childhood history to make a retrospective diagnosis of the disorder. Chapman explained that a reconstruction of defendant’s childhood cannot be done in this case because both of his parents are now deceased and therefore cannot be interviewed, school records are not available, and the only evidence from people who knew him as a youth indicates that he was reliable, went to school and was a hard worker. Although defendant told Kowalkowski that he got into the “usual boyhood fights,” it is not known who initiated the fights. Chapman opined that defendant likely refused to discuss the particulars of his crimes with Dr. Kowalkowski because of his delusional disorder.

Under cross-examination, Dr. Chapman admitted that he never attempted to delve into how many times defendant had gotten into fights or whether he had initiated them. Chapman also admitted that defendant had marked “true” to questions about having been suspended from school and having been sent to the principal’s office for behavioral problems.

Following closing arguments, the jury was instructed on the applicable law. It subsequently rejected the insanity defense and the guilty but mentally ill verdict. Instead, it returned verdicts finding defendant guilty of three counts of first degree murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, one count of disarming a peace officer, one count of home invasion, one count of criminal damage to property and multiple counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm. The jury acquitted defendant of the armed robbery of Deputy Streicher, the attempted murder of Officer Rewerts and a count of aggravated vehicular hijacking.

After admonishments from the court, defendant waived a jury for both the eligibility and penalty phases of the sentencing hearing. The defense presented no evidence at the eligibility phase, and the trial court took judicial notice of the evidence introduced at trial and the convictions that were entered. The trial court found defendant eligible for the death penalty because defendant was at least 18 years old and had murdered a police officer during the course of his official duties, had murdered two or more persons, and had committed two of the murders during the course of a home invasion. The matter then proceeded to the penalty phase of sentencing.

In aggravation, the State first called Larry Bantz, who testified that he runs a drive-up produce stand located in the front of his house on Highway 78. On October 21, 2001, defendant drove up to the stand in a truck, loaded around 500 pounds of potatoes and 100 pounds of onions, and then drove away without paying anything for the produce. Bantz later learned that defendant was trying to sell the produce himself. About two weeks later, defendant returned to Bantz’s produce stand and admitted that he had “wiped [Bantz] out of potatoes and onions a couple of weeks ago.” Defendant then gave Bantz $50. When Bantz explained that the value of the produce was more than $50, defendant told him that he was not going to pay any more. Bantz’s father, who was also present, told defendant that “it wasn’t right.” Defendant then told Bantz’s father “to shut his fucking mouth or he would shut it for him” and that he would do what he wanted, when he wanted. When Bantz informed defendant that he was going to call the police, defendant responded that it did not make any difference, they had never done anything to him in the past. Bantz then told defendant that he did not want defendant coming back to the stand anymore unless he was going to pay for the produce. Defendant replied “fuck you,” and told Bantz that he better watch his family, which included two children and a pregnant wife. A couple of days after this confrontation, defendant came by and in anger yelled at Bantz that he had better watch his family and his belongings. Sometime later, defendant again drove by Bantz’s home, “glaring” and “looking *** like he was checking things out.”

On cross-examination, Bantz testified that he had reported his confrontation with defendant to the sheriffs department. Bantz acknowledged that he told defendant during their encounter that he owed a total of $64, and that at another point, he told defendant that if he ever came back he would leave either in “an ambulance or a body bag.”

Judy Preston, a dispatcher at the Stark County jail, testified that in June 2003, she was supervising the facility when defendant was being held there. In accordance with jail procedures, Preston’s job duties included opening all inmate mail and scanning it for contraband or inappropriate remarks. Preston informed defendant of this procedure. A short time later, Preston opened a letter from defendant to his wife, with words directed to Preston that stated, “look inside, bitch” and “you still have your fat nose in here.” In another writing, defendant again referred to Preston as a “bitch” and stated “you still have your fucking nose in here and your fat ass, too.” When informed that his conduct was inappropriate and could result in some of his mail privileges being revoked, defendant told Preston to “stick it up [her] ass.”

Robert Winn, a chief deputy with the Stark County sheriffs department, testified that his duties included supervising visitation at the jail. In June 2005, Winn supervised a visit between defendant and his wife. During the visit, defendant told his wife that the employees at the jail were all “bastards” and he “should have shot them all.” Defendant then asked about his dog, as defendant had been allowed to see the dog on a prior visit. When defendant was informed that no animals were allowed in the jail, defendant looked at Winn and said, “Fuck you.” Thereafter, defendant repeatedly refused to flush the toilet in his jail cell, forcing plumbing modifications to be made to the jail flushing system.

After presenting victim impact testimony, the State rested, and the defense began its case in mitigation. Defendant introduced the psychological reports compiled by Day and Chapman. The first witness called by the defense was Dale King, an Illinois State Police investigator. King testified that he interviewed Bantz on May 9, 2002, about the theft that occurred at his produce stand. According to King, Bantz said that he had told defendant that if he ever came back he would leave in either “an ambulance or a body bag.” Defendant left, and Bantz never heard from defendant again and did not receive the remaining $50 that was owed.

The next witness called by the defense was 21-year-old Chaderick Carlton, who testified that he sometimes helped defendant do his chores. Carlton described defendant as smart, helpful and a good friend, who taught him a lot of things, such as how to make repairs. On cross-examination, Carlton acknowledged that defendant was handy enough to know how to saw off a 12-gauge shotgun to make it more deadly.

Mary Hartley testified that she was a neighbor of the defendant and that she got along fine with him. She attributed this to the fact that she stayed on “her side of the road” and did not let defendant’s messy property bother her. Sometimes defendant glared at her, but other times they were able to talk about defendant’s dog-training activities. Defendant was a hard worker, and when her house was damaged by fire, defendant was the first person to help her, bringing her a meal and letting her use a cell phone and a watch. On another occasion, defendant bought her a dish at an auction.

Walter Bass testified that he worked with defendant from 1988 to 1990 and the two became friends. Bass noted that defendant was amazingly handy. Defendant helped him on a number of occasions with personal projects and declined to be paid in return. Bass believed that defendant was honest because on one occasion defendant came to his house looking for a way to haul a pony he had promised to give some child for his birthday. On cross-examination, Bass testified that defendant had never complained to him that he had been harassed, conspired against or spied upon.

Michael Keller testified that he has known defendant for about seven or eight years. They met for coffee on a regular basis, and defendant helped him with repairs on Keller’s property. Under cross-examination, Keller admitted that defendant held lengthy grudges and that a person had to “walk on egg shells, at times,” around defendant. Defendant once became angry at Keller because Keller referred to a piece of machinery owned by defendant as “old.” Keller was aware that defendant had killed two persons over a grudge, but he still considered defendant to be a friend.

Eugene Boehle, a building contractor, testified that he hired defendant to pour concrete and do odd jobs. Defendant was a good, dependable worker. Boehle felt that defendant was trustworthy and noted that on one occasion, in a snowstorm, defendant returned a tractor he had borrowed because he thought Boehle might need it. Boehle also noted that a week before the murders he had breakfast with defendant.

Gregory Knowles testified that he considered defendant a friend, but not a close friend. Defendant helped Knowles with a number of projects and did not ask for payment. On cross-examination, Knowles noted that defendant was easily angered if anyone tried to argue with him.

Barbara Kraklow and Janine Streitmatter testified that defendant helped them with projects. Streitmatter said that defendant was good to her and described him as the “nicest guy you would ever want to meet.”

David Thompson, defendant’s son, was also called to testify. David stated that he was 40 years old at the time of trial and that he had an older brother and sister. He graduated from Bradley University in 1985, and was currently employed by the Illinois Department of Transportation as an engineer. Defendant paid for the college education of each of defendant’s children. David described his upbringing as normal and said that defendant was a good father, who taught him to work hard. David also stated that defendant spoiled David’s daughter Corey with nice gifts. On one occasion, Corey asked defendant for a pony, and he brought her one on a truck and delivered it to the backyard.

David testified that 13 years ago he bought defendant a 13-acre farm because defendant always wanted to be a farmer and he loved animals. After defendant was fired from his job with the mining company in the mid-1980s, it was harder for him to make ends meet, and he became frustrated when the work he did for others was not fairly compensated.

Under cross-examination, David testified that defendant carried a weapon on a routine basis, but he never left a weapon lying around the house, where somebody could grab it and hurt someone accidentally. Defendant kept three loaded guns in his truck and 10 or 12 guns in his house.

Amy Lewis was the final witness called by defendant. Lewis testified that her family owns a farm that is one-half mile from defendant’s property. She described defendant as a good friend. They helped each other with making improvements to their respective properties. Defendant also worked for her husband in her husband’s building-contractor business, as defendant was a fine carpenter. Lewis also noted that she and her family went on a number of camping and fishing trips with defendant, and they always had a good time with him. Lewis stated that she has regularly visited and written to defendant while he has been in jail and values defendant’s friendship. On cross-examination, Lewis testified that there was never anything bizarre about defendant’s actions and he always socialized in a normal manner.

After hearing closing arguments, the trial court recessed to consider its decision. When it returned, the court recounted the evidence presented in aggravation and mitigation and then concluded that there were no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude imposition of the death penalty. Accordingly, the court sentenced defendant to death.

ANALYSIS

At the outset, we note that the parties advocate differing standards of review for assessing a claim that a death sentence is an excessive punishment in light of the aggravation and mitigation presented at the sentencing proceeding. The State urges that we review the death penalty determination for an abuse of discretion, and defendant contends that we conduct a careful review of the record that is just short of a de novo review. Consequently, we will briefly discuss the appropriate standard of review to be employed in this area of our jurisprudence.

A perusal of our case law shows that we apply neither a pure abuse of discretion nor a pure de novo standard in deciding the propriety of a death sentence. Some older decisions of this court appear to have reviewed capital, excessive-sentencing challenges for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., People v. Ward, 154 Ill. 2d 272, 338 (1992); People v. Foster, 119 Ill. 2d 69, 103-04 (1987). More recently, however, we have noted that although the abuse of discretion standard pertains to sentencing determinations in general, we are less deferential to the trial court in cases involving a sentence of death (People v. Williams, 192 Ill. 2d 548, 576 (2000)). Yet, despite the diminished deference when a sentence of death is imposed, a capital sentencer’s decision will not be lightly overturned where it is amply supported by the record. See People v. Mertz, 218 Ill. 2d 1, 54 (2005), citing People v. Taylor, 166 Ill. 2d 414, 432 (1995); see also People v. Burton, 184 Ill. 2d 1, 35-36 (1998).

Given the qualitative difference between death and imprisonment as penalties, we reject the notion that a pure abuse of discretion standard of review should obtain in capital cases. Instead, we believe that it is appropriate to give some deference to the trial court or jury on matters involving factual and credibility determinations (see People v. Ballard, 206 Ill. 2d 151, 188-89 (2002)), while at the same time subjecting the record to intense scrutiny to ensure that only those deserving of the ultimate penalty are so sentenced. In doing so, we are guided by the following well-settled principles and standards.

The decision made at the second stage of a death penalty hearing is, and always has been, a process of evidentiary balancing. Mertz, 218 Ill. 2d at 54. It requires the trier of fact to measure the evidence in aggravation against the evidence in mitigation. See Mertz, 218 Ill. 2d at 54; Ballard, 206 Ill. 2d at 188; Taylor, 166 Ill. 2d at 432. After a defendant is found death eligible, the trier of fact is then free to consider a myriad of factors to determine whether death is the appropriate punishment. Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 163, 129 L. Ed. 2d 133, 142, 114 S. Ct. 2187, 2193 (1994); California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1008, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1171, 1185, 103 S. Ct. 3446, 3457 (1983). A defendant’s character, prior criminal history, mental capacity, background, age, and future dangerousness are just a few of the factors that a trier of fact may consider in fixing the appropriate punishment. Mertz, 218 Ill. 2d at 56, citing Simmons, 512 U.S. at 163, 129 L. Ed. 2d at 142, 114 S. Ct. at 2193-94. Because it is a weighing process for the trier of fact, which has the superior opportunity to assess firsthand the credibility and believability of the witnesses on the stand, we will not lightly overturn the trier of fact’s decision. See Ballard, 206 Ill. 2d at 188-89. While keeping this in mind, we will conduct our own thorough and careful review, considering the circumstances of the crimes and the character of the defendant to determine whether the death penalty is appropriate. People v. Chapman, 194 Ill. 2d 186, 253-54 (2000).

As we recently stated in both Mertz and Ballard,

“ ‘In determining whether a sentence of death is proper, we must consider “the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense.” People v. Pitsonbarger, 142 Ill. 2d 353, 388 (1990), citing Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 304, 49 L. Ed. 2d 944, 961, 96 S. Ct. 2978, 2991 (1976). “[E]ach capital case is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts, focusing on whether the circumstances of the crime and the character of the defendant are such that the deterrent and retributive functions of the ultimate sanction will be ser