Cited by

Allen, 248 Ariz. at 364 ¶¶ 39–40; –16 (1993) (finding depravity when babysitter killed the child he cared for).

The use of that relationship in partial support of a finding of heinousness and depravity is constitutionally permissible.” (alterations omitted) (); (“Although there was no legal ‘parent/child’ relationship, defendant and victim did share a special relationship in that defendant was the child’s full-time caregiver for several months before he killed him.”).

(“Although the jury findings in this case clearly demonstrate that the kidnapping was pursuant to a plan to kill, that does not mean that only one crime was committed.

The superior court granted the motion, alleging child abuse as the predicate felony for felony murder barred the State from arguing that Martinson had intentionally killed J.E.M.

confinement of a child for the purpose of their own or another’s wrongdoing will not constitute the ‘consent’ that would bar a kidnapping charge.”

See Johnson, 181 Ariz. at 350, 890 P.2d at 645 (interpreting “likely” as “probable,” upholding conviction under § 13-3623(A)(1) based on circumstances that may cause serious injury, rather than actual serious injury); (noting that a “person commits child abuse if ‘under circumstances likely to produce death or serious physical injury,’ he causes a child to suffer 20 STATE V. PAYNE Opinion of the Court

a case in which our supreme court found it improper to use one fact to prove more than one aggravating factor if the court weighs that particular fact twice.

See State v. Prince, 206 Ariz. 24, 27 ¶ 10, State v. Styers, 177 Ariz. 21 104, 116

¶69 Hargrave argues that the State did not establish the pecuniary gain aggravator because conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence.

¶ 11 Under the statute, the crime of kidnapping requires that the accused restrict the movements of another “in a manner which interferes substantially with such person’s liberty.” Id.

is “used to determine whether defendant’s conduct ‘constitutes a single act, which requires concurrent sentences, or multiple acts, which permit consecutive sentences.’” , quoting Gordon, 161 Ariz. at 312 , 778 P.2d at 1208 .

(holding evidence of financial trouble was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense for pecuniary gain).

(noting that the trial court may not consider the same fact to satisfy different aggravating factors).

First, , we do not believe that the legislature’s use of the word “acting” was intended to preclude crimes of *266 omission when, as here, a person in fact commits an offense that the legislature has specifically included as a basis for felony murder.