the finding of mental retardation of a defendant as “analogous to a conclusive mitigating factor in New Jersey’s capital murder scheme.” 188 N.J. at 406, 908 A.2d 181. Thus, the legal effect of a finding of mental retardation is like a conclusive mitigating factor that precludes the imposition of the death penalty. We conclude that because mental retardation is a conclusive mitigating factor, and because mitigating factors do not have to be found unanimously, a unanimous jury finding of mental retardation is not required to preclude a death sentence. Stated differently, if a single juror finds that a defendant has met the burden of proof for mental retardation, the defendant shall not be subject to a death sentence. See State v. Flores, 135 N.M. 759, 93 P.3d 1264, 1271 (2004) (<HOLDING>). As a result of our decision that a unanimous
holding that unless jury unanimously rejects defendants claim of mental retardation court shall impose life imprisonment recognizing that texas courts have adopted the aamr definition of mental retardation providing that mental retardation must manifest before age of 18 years recognizing that before the case was submitted to the jury the trial court charged the jury that if it were unable to reach a unanimous recommendation the court would impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole recognizing that even a nonunanimous recommendation of death by the jury proved that the jury including the jurors who voted against the recommendation of death had unanimously found the existence of a proffered aggravating circumstance even though the circumstance was not included within the definition of the particular capitalmurder offense charged in the indictment because the trial court had specifically instructed the jury that it could not proceed to a vote on whether to impose the death penalty unless it had already unanimously agreed that an aggravating circumstance existed holding that the sentencing procedure was inadequate in failing to allow jury to give mitigating effect to defendants mental retardation and abusive background