With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". like that described above, no matter how horrific, cannot be given substantial weight as a statutory or non-statutory mitigating factor when the evidence is as limited as in this case. See State v. Jackson, 186 Ariz. 20, 31, 918 P.2d 1038, 1049 (1996). First, Appellant offered only self-reported evidence, which the trial court could not corroborate. This court has repeatedly held that self-reported evidence may be given little or no mitigating weight. See State v. Gallegos, 185 Ariz. 340, 344-45, 916 P.2d 1056, 1060-61 (1996) (discounting an expert’s report of intoxication because it was based solely on the defendant’s self-reporting); State v. Murray, 184 Ariz. 9, 45, 906 P.2d 542, 578 (1995) (rejecting historical substance abuse as a mitigating factor becau 200, 219-20 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Because Appellant failed to establish a

A: holding that  1109a requires causal connection between breach and loss
B: holding that a chaotic and abusive childhood is only a mitigating factor with evidence of a causal connection between the abuse and the crime
C: 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
D: holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint
B.