evidence of the abuse was self-reported and uncorroborated); State v. Stokley, 182 Ariz. 505, 520-21, 898 P.2d 454, 469-70 (1995) (discounting an expert’s opinion that the defendant’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct when he committed the crimes was diminished because it was based entirely on the defendant’s self-reported alcohol consumption and blackout on the night of the murders). ¶42 Second, Appellant failed to show a causal connection between his traumatic childhood or history of substance abuse and his actions on the night of the murder. We have previously explained that we require a causal connection to justify considering evidence of a defendant’s background as a mitigating circumstance. See State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 592, 951 P.2d 454, 467 (1997) (<HOLDING>); State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 471, 490-91, 917
holding that causal connection can be established when a history of widespread abuse puts the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged deprivation and he fails to do so holding that a history of substance abuse is only a mitigating factor when a causal connection exists between the alcohol and drug abuse and the crime holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury holding that a chaotic and abusive childhood is only a mitigating factor with evidence of a causal connection between the abuse and the crime