Factor (i), both as written and as interpreted by the California Supreme Court in the Lucky decision and its progeny, does just the opposite ofwhatthe 87. See, e.g., Ala. Code §13A-5-51 [age]; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16-11-103 (4)(a) [age]; Fla. Stat. Ann. §921.141 (6) (g) [age]; 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §911 (e)(4) [age]; Ark. Code Ann. §5-4-605(4) [youth]; Nev. Rev. Stat. §200.035 (6) [youth]; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2929.04(b)(4) [youth]; Md. Code Ann., Art. 27, §413(g)(5) [“youthful age”]; Tenn. Code Ann. §39-13-204G)(7) [“youth or advanced age]; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §630:5 (VI)(d) [“The defendant was youthful, although not under the age of 18.”| 88. The three states in this group are: Connecticut, Indiana and Montana.