Cited by

Cruelty requires a showing that “the victim consciously experienced physical or mental pain prior to death, and the defendant knew or should have known that suffering would occur.” (citations omitted).

A ¶18 “Cruelty exists if the victim consciously experienced physical or mental pain prior to death and the defendant knew or should have known that suffering would occur.” (citation omitted).

“Prosecutorial misconduct is harmless error if we can find beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” , see also Rutledge, , 66 P.3d at 56 (providing “improper comment on a defendant’s failure to testify can be harmless error”); , (prosecutor’s impermissible statement on defendant’s failure to testify harmless error beyond reasonable doubt; “we cannot say it contributed to the jury’s verdict in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the context within

We therefore must determine whether evidence was presented from which a rational jury could find that Bearup simply intended to restrain Mark, Detrich, 178 Ariz. at 383, 873 P.2d at 1305, but not to inflict death or physical injury or to aid Johnson and Gaines in doing so.

“‘Trial judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it in making their decisions.’” quoting Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 653 (1990).

¶ 4 “ ‘Answering questions after police properly give the Miranda warnings constitutes a waiver by conduct.’ ” State v. Tros *352 tle, , , see also North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S.Ct.

Additionally, we weigh mental health mitigation in proportion to “a defendant’s ability to conform or appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct.” Johnson, 212 Ariz. at 440 ¶ 65, 133 P.3d at 750 ( ).

24 was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.4 b. Especially Cruel ¶60 The (G)(6) “especially cruel” aggravator is established if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that “the victim consciously experienced physical or mental pain prior to death, and the defendant knew or should have known that suffering would occur.” (citation omitted).

We consider mental impairment mitigation in proportion “to a defendant’s ability to conform or appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct.” see also Johnson, 212 Ariz. at 440, ¶ 65, 133 P.3d at 750.

¶41 The instruction given paraphrases this Court’s that “[c]ruelty exists if the victim consciously experienced physical or mental pain prior to death, and the defendant knew or should have known that suffering would occur.” (Internal citation omitted.)

State v. Trostle, 191 Ariz. 4, 18

Anderson II, 210 Ariz. at 352 n.18 ¶ 109, 111 P.3d at 394 n.18 ( ).

A finding of cruelty requires proof that the victim “consciously experienced physical or mental pain prior to death, and the defendant knew or should have known that suffering would occur.” (citation omitted).

(in setting aside death sentence, giving serious consideration to defendant’s mental illness because of its impact on defendant’s capacity to conform to the law); (finding

“Cruelty exists if the victim consciously experienced physical or mental pain prior to death, and the defendant knew or should have known that suffering would occur.” , (citation omitted).

This Court reviews a trial court’s rulings involving the voir dire of prospective jurors for abuse of discretion

(citing Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 653 , 110 S.Ct.

(internal citation omitted).

we outlined the circumstances that might mandate remand.

rest on grounds of relevancy, possible prejudice and constitutional considerations”); , quoting Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 653 , 110 S.Ct.

¶ 32 Moreover, “trial judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it in making their decisions,” , (citation omitted), and the need for a summary argument at the close of evidence is not always helpful to the trial court acting as the trier of both fact and law.

Sansing, 206 Ariz. at 235, ¶ 6 , 77 P.3d at 33 ( , ); Djerf, 191 Ariz. at 595, ¶45 , 959 P.2d at 1286 .