The court instructed the jury that it was “not required to find that there is a connection between a mitigating circumstance and the crime committed in order to consider the mitigation evidence.” Forde argues that by instructing the jury it was “not required” to find a connection, the court incorrectly implied it was permissible to require a connection before considering the evidence. ¶ 122 The trial court did not err. The court correctly told the jury that “mitigating circumstances may be found from any evidence,” it “should consider all of the evidence,” and it could consider in mitigation “anything related to the defendant’s character, propensity, history or record, or circumstances of the offense.” See Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 110, 114, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982) (<HOLDING>). The court also said that each juror “must
holding that a trial court must not preclude the jury from considering any aspect of the defendants character or circumstances as a mitigating factor holding that juries may not be precluded from considering as a mitigating factor any aspect of a defendants character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers emphasis in original holding that any relevant mitigating evidence concerning a defendants character should not be excluded holding that juries may not be precluded from considering as a mitigating factor any aspect of a defendants character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death holding that sentencing scheme that permitted a limited range of mitigating evidence was unconstitutional because the eighth and fourteenth amendments require that the sentencer  not be precluded from considering as a mitigating factor any aspect of a defendants character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death