Cited by

Sammantha argues that the caregiver prong of this test was not met, 8 by allowing the jury to conclude that a cousin relationship was sufficient.

This includes aggravators in regard to infliction of gratuitous violence, senselessness of the crime and the helplessness of the victim.” (relishing of the murder, infliction of gratuitous violence, mutilation of victim, senselessness of the crime, and helplessness of victim are factors in evaluating heinous and depraved aggravator).

¶¶ 5–7, (interpreting 2001 version of statute); –39 ¶¶ 56–57, – 60 (2002); State v. (Robert G.) Jones, ¶ 64, n.2, n.2 (1983); –11, –36 (1981).

State v. Gretzler (Gretzler II), (noting that the (F)(6) 43 STATE V. PAYNE Opinion of the Court aggravator is established if the jury finds that the State proved cruelty, heinousness, or depravity).

We have held that a trial court sufficiently narrows application of the “heinous or depraved” part of the (F)(6) aggravator by instructing the jury to consider five factors, including gratuitous violence, as set forth in State v. Gretzler (Gretzler III), -52, -11 (1983).

(F)(7)(a) Aggravator ¶68 Hernandez also contends that the (F)(7)(a) aggravator should not apply because it “just means [that the] defendant was a recidivist, which constitutes the majority of non-capital felons.” n.2, n.2 (1983).

(noting that “the purpose of an aggravation/mitigation hearing is to determine the character and propensities of the defendant” because “[t]he punishment should fit the offender” (internal quotation omitted)); State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238, 261 (Tenn.

“As long as the prior conviction is entered before the sentencing hearing, the conviction may support the (F)(1) aggravator even if it is committed before, contemporaneously with, or after the capital homicide.” ¶ 98, see also State v. Gretzler (Gretzler II), n.2, n.2 (1983).

19 victim; and (5) senseless crime.” State v. Greenway, 170 Ariz. 155, 166, (-53, -12 (1983)).

-53, -12 (1983).7 Three years later, we noted that “[i]n addition to th[ose] five factors .

determining “whether a killing was 7 especially heinous or depraved: (1) relishing the murder, (2) infliction of gratuitous violence, (3) needless mutilation of the victim, (4) senselessness of the crime, and (5) helplessness of the victim.” ¶ 83, (citing State v. Gretzler, 135 Ariz. 42, 51-52, -11 (1983)).

-84, ¶ 51, -94 (2002) (-53, - 21 - -12 (1983)) (listing factors used to establish heinousness and depravity).

(stating that a defendant’s relishing of the murder can support a finding that it was especially heinous or depraved).

¶83 “Heinousness and depravity refer to the mental state and attitude of the perpetrator as reflected in his words and actions.” ¶ 15, (citation and internal quotation omitted); 37 (“[T]he statutory concepts of heinous and depraved involve a killer’s vile state of mind at the time of the murder, as evidenced by the killer’s actions.”).

209 Ariz. at 31, ¶ 59, 97 P.3d at 856 ( ¶ 17 , , ).