Opinion ID: 1182224
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony Concerning Underpants Found Near Victim's Remains

Text: Defendant next argues that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during direct examination when he questioned a detective from the Pima County Sheriff's Department concerning items found in the vicinity of the victim's remains. The detective responded that one item recovered was a pair of little girl's underpants. The prosecutor asked no further questions about the underpants. Defendant asserts that the prosecutor was attempting to mislead the jury by failing to elicit from the detective that the victim's mother had been unable positively to identify the underpants as her daughter's, and that he thereby engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. See infra Part 17(G). Regardless of the prosecutor's motive in questioning the detective, the jury was informed through defense counsel's thorough cross-examination that the victim's mother had not positively identified the underpants. We therefore find that defendant was not prejudiced by the incident. 5. Comments Made by Prosecutor Defendant contends that the prosecutor made improper comments in both the trial and closing argument that prejudiced his right to a fair trial. Particularly, defendant takes issue with what he describes as the prosecutor's repeated gratuitous comments attempting to ingratiate himself with the jury. [6] For example, at the close of defense counsel's direct examination of a witness, the prosecutor engaged in the following colloquy with the witness: MR. DAVIS: If I don't ask you any questions, will you promise not to knock me down the next time we play soccer? WITNESS: No. MR. DAVIS: Well, no questions anyway. Of course, the record cannot reveal the nuances of the prosecutor's courtroom demeanor. Nevertheless, although we do not find an excess of such statements in the record, this exchange was not an isolated event. Indeed, the trial judge found it necessary more than once to admonish the prosecutor  outside the jury's hearing  to refrain from the extraneous comments. Defendant also argues that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor's statements during closing argument. Specifically, the record reveals that the prosecutor questioned defense counsel's motives for making certain improper statements in closing argument, [7] and repeatedly joked about the defense counsel's lengthy presentation style. [8] The state responds that the prosecutor's gratuitous remarks were utterly innocuous attempts to leaven the grinding seriousness of week after week of murder trial with a few minor pleasantries. We agree with the state's conclusion that the prosecutor's comments and asides throughout the trial were innocuous, although we express no opinion on the prosecutor's reasons for making them. We are more reluctant, however, to dismiss as innocuous Mr. Davis's jocular remarks about defense counsel's closing argument and especially his comments concerning defense counsel's motives. Although we recognize that an adversarial setting may encourage some good humored  and even ill-humored  repartee between attorneys, we believe that, regardless of its effect on defendant's trial, the prosecutor's attempts to discredit the defense attorney before the jury evidenced a lack of discretion and a disregard for the high standards expected of attorneys who represent the public interest, and as such they were not innocuous. Regardless of whether Mr. Davis's glibness and his personal comments about the defense counsel were precipitated by the culmination of a long, emotional trial, or whether they were encouraged by the gavel-to-gavel televised coverage of the case, we find his statements unnecessary and inappropriate. Nevertheless, we do not believe that the comments deprived defendant of a fair trial. As this court has held: In determining whether remarks made by counsel in a criminal case are so objectionable as to warrant a new trial, the trial court should consider (1) whether the remarks call to the attention of the jurors matters that they would not be justified in considering in determining their verdict, and (2) the probability that the jurors, under the circumstances of the particular case, were influenced by the remarks. Misconduct alone will not mandate that the defendant be awarded a new trial; such an award is only required when the defendant has been denied a fair trial as a result of the actions of counsel. State v. Hansen, 156 Ariz. 291, 296-97, 751 P.2d 951, 956-57 (1988) (citation omitted). We further noted in Hansen that the trial court is in a better position to judge whether the prosecutor is unduly sarcastic, his tone of voice, facial expressions, and their effect on the jury, if any. Accordingly, we defer to the trial court's judgment in the absence of patent error. Hansen, 156 Ariz. at 297, 751 P.2d at 957. Concerning the gratuitous remarks, the trial court reprimanded Mr. Davis outside the jury's hearing and threatened further sanctions if he continued making them. Apparently, the court did not find further sanctions necessary. Concerning the why do you break the rules statement, the court told the prosecutor that he had gone far enough, in effect instructing him not to break the rules himself. Although in capital cases appellate courts are prone to scrutinize [improper statements] more carefully, Burrows v. State, 38 Ariz. 99, 117, 297 P. 1029, 1036 (1931), overruled on other grounds, State v. Hernandez, 83 Ariz. 279, 320 P.2d 467 (1958), we do not believe that the prosecutor's behavior, albeit unnecessary and inappropriate, rose to the level of reversible error. See, e.g., United States v. Weinstein, 762 F.2d 1522, 1542 (11th Cir.1985) (Reversal on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct requires that the conduct be `so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.'), quoting United States v. Blevins, 555 F.2d 1236, 1240 (5th Cir.1977). The statements conceivably were attempts to call to the jurors' attention matters irrelevant to the determination of defendant's guilt or innocence. The probability that the statements actually influenced the jury's verdict, however, is remote. We find no patent error. 6. Consolidation and Severance Defendant claims that the lower court's refusal to sever the kidnapping and murder offenses at trial constitutes reversible error. He alleges that consolidation of the two charges (1) caused prejudice to his defense; (2) resulted in a rub-off effect whereby neither offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) prevented him from testifying on one charge and not the other, thereby violating his fifth amendment rights. The state initially responds to these allegations by arguing that defendant did not file a proper motion to sever, resulting in a procedural waiver under rule 13.4, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. We will address the procedural issue first, before considering the merits of defendant's allegations. The state notes that, prior to arguing its motion for consolidation, defendant filed both an opposition to the state's motion for consolidation and a motion to sever. After argument, the trial court granted the state's motion to consolidate; immediately, defendant renewed his motion to sever. The state contends that, technically, defendant's conduct does not comport with rule 13.4, which speaks of filing a motion to sever only after a motion to consolidate has already been granted. Thus, the state argues, this technically incorrect motion to sever, coupled with the Arizona courts' prior strict application of the waiver provisions of rule 13.4, requires this court to reject defendant's claim on procedural grounds. Although the state is correct in asserting that the waiver provisions of rule 13.4 have been strictly applied, the cases it cites are not on point. See State v. Haas, 138 Ariz. 413, 675 P.2d 673 (1983); State v. Bruni, 129 Ariz. 312, 630 P.2d 1044 (App. 1981). In each of those cases, the court found that a defendant's motion to sever was waived when it was not properly renewed during trial or at the close of evidence. Haas, 138 Ariz. at 425, 675 P.2d at 685; Bruni, 129 Ariz. at 316, 630 P.2d at 1048. Failure to do so violated the explicit requirements dictated by rule 13.4(c). In this case, however, defendant's conduct does not violate any specific provision of the rule. Although the state argues that the rule prohibits such conduct by implication, we are unconvinced. Moreover, rule 1.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides that the criminal rules shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration, [and] the elimination of unnecessary delay and expense.... For this court to conclude that a procedural waiver resulted from defendant's conduct  i.e., conduct that is not proscribed by any rule  would be to contradict the principles of construction provided by rule 1.2. Accordingly, we do not find that defendant's motion to sever was waived. When reviewing the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to sever, this court will not find reversible error absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Comer, 165 Ariz. 413, 418, 799 P.2d 333, 338 (1990); State v. Day, 148 Ariz. 490, 493, 715 P.2d 743, 746 (1986). Given this standard, we will review each of defendant's allegations separately. First, defendant contends that the trial court's refusal to sever the kidnapping and murder charges prejudiced his defense. A clear abuse of discretion is established only when a defendant shows that, at the time he made his motion to sever, he had proven that his defense would be prejudiced absent severance. State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108, 115, 704 P.2d 238, 245 (1985); State v. Lucas, 146 Ariz. 597, 601, 708 P.2d 81, 85 (1985). This burden of proof is not met, however, when evidence as to one set of charges would have been admissible at the trial on the other set `as part of the complete picture.' Via, 146 Ariz. at 115, 704 P.2d at 245, quoting State v. Mincey, 115 Ariz. 472, 483, 566 P.2d 273, 284 (1977), rev'd on other grounds, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). In this case, the kidnapping charge was the underlying offense supporting the felony murder charge. Consequently, a substantial portion of the evidence regarding the kidnapping charge would have been admissible at trial for the felony murder charge to provide the jury with a complete picture of the events preceding defendant's arrest. In fact, another court has affirmed the propriety of consolidating a kidnapping offense with a felony murder offense in two cases with strikingly similar factual backgrounds to that of this case. See People v. Cunningham, 194 Colo. 198, 201, 570 P.2d 1086, 1088 (1977) (a defendant charged with kidnapping a child, who was later found dead, was also charged with felony murder); People v. McCrary, 190 Colo. 538, 551-52, 549 P.2d 1320, 1330-31 (1976) (a defendant charged with kidnapping a child, whose body was found some time later, was subsequently charged with felony murder). Therefore, because defendant did not meet his required burden of proof, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Second, defendant claims that the trial court's refusal to sever the two charges resulted in a rub-off effect whereby neither charge was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He cites a line of cases espousing the rub-off doctrine, which provides that cases with multiple defendants and a great disparity in the weight of evidence against each defendant pose a danger that the guilt of one defendant will rub-off on the other defendant. See United States v. Mardian, 546 F.2d 973, 977 (D.C. Cir.1976); United States v. Donaway, 447 F.2d 940, 943 (9th Cir.1971). Thus, a trial court's refusal to sever defendants' trials under such circumstances constitutes an abuse of discretion. Donaway, 447 F.2d at 943. Although conceding that these cases are not directly on point, defendant argues that the rub-off doctrine should apply by analogy to the trial court's refusal to sever the kidnapping and murder offenses in this case. We disagree. In Comer, we rejected a similar argument when the defendant in that case claimed that a guilt determination on one charge may have influenced the jury's guilt determination on the other charge. Comer, 165 Ariz. at 419, 799 P.2d at 339. We ruled that a defendant is not prejudiced if the jury is (1) instructed to consider each offense separately, and (2) is advised that each offense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Comer, 165 Ariz. at 419, 799 P.2d at 339. In this case, the trial court's instructions fulfilled both requirements. Accordingly, we find no prejudice to defendant and, therefore, no abuse of discretion by the trial court. Finally, defendant maintains that the trial court's refusal to sever the two offenses prevented him from testifying on one charge and not the other. Severance, however, is not automatic whenever a defendant decides to testify on some charges, but not others. Comer, 165 Ariz. at 419, 799 P.2d at 339. He must show that he has both important testimony to give on some counts and strong reasons for not testifying on others. Comer, 165 Ariz. at 419, 799 P.2d at 339; accord United States v. Nolan, 700 F.2d 479, 483 (9th Cir.1983). Defendant's general explanation did not reach the level of specificity necessary to meet this requirement. See Baker v. United States, 401 F.2d 958, 977 (D.C. Cir.1968). Consequently, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. 7. Defendant's Arrest, Detention and Interrogation, and the Searches of Defendant's Car A. The Arrest Defendant contends that he was improperly arrested and detained by federal authorities in Texas and that the trial court therefore should have suppressed any evidence obtained as a result of the arrest. FBI agents arrested defendant in Kerrville, Texas on September 20, 1984 (three days after the victim's disappearance), pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by a United States magistrate in Tucson. The warrant charged defendant with kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201. Except for a limited number of circumstances not relevant in this case, kidnapping becomes a federal offense only when the victim is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). Defendant argues that, because no evidence of interstate transportation existed, federal authorities improperly relied on the presumption of interstate transportation found in 18 U.S.C. § 1201(b) to establish the required nexus. Section 1201(b) provides that the failure to release the victim within twenty-four hours after he shall have been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, or carried away shall create a rebuttable presumption that such person has been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. Relying on United States v. Moore, 571 F.2d 76 (2d Cir.1978), defendant asserts that § 1201(b)'s presumption of interstate transportation is unconstitutional and that, because the FBI had no probable cause to believe a federal crime had been committed absent that presumption, his arrest deprived him of due process. The state attacks defendant's argument on several grounds, noting first that the record does not indicate that the magistrate actually relied upon the presumption. Because the affidavit did not mention the § 1201(b) presumption, argues the state, the magistrate conceivably could have drawn his own reasonable inference that the victim had been transported interstate from the facts that the victim had not been seen in 3 days and that the suspect had been located in Texas. The state further argues that Moore, which stands completely alone in its condemnation of the § 1201(b) presumption, is inapposite to this case because it concerned the use of the presumption at trial, not in an arrest warrant affidavit. We are persuaded by the state's argument, for even if the magistrate did rely on the presumption, we do not find Moore persuasive authority for the argument that the presumption is unconstitutional when used to establish probable cause to arrest. In Moore, the court reversed the kidnapping convictions of two defendants because § 1201(b)'s presumption of interstate transportation formed the only substantial basis to establish an interstate nexus. After examining a string of United States Supreme Court cases concerning the constitutionality of statutory presumptions in the trial of criminal cases,  Moore, 571 F.2d at 85-86 (emphasis added), citing Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463, 63 S.Ct. 1241, 87 L.Ed. 1519 (1943); United States v. Gainey, 380 U.S. 63, 85 S.Ct. 754, 13 L.Ed.2d 658 (1965); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969), the court concluded: We simply cannot say with substantial assurance that for purposes of proving the transportation of a kidnapping victim in interstate or foreign commerce such transportation is more likely than not to have occurred whenever the victim is not released within 24 hours of his disappearance. Moore, 571 F.2d at 86-87 (emphasis added). The court, therefore, held that the presumption of interstate transportation embodied in 18 U.S.C. § 1201(b) is unconstitutional when used to prove an element of the federal crime of kidnapping.  Moore, 571 F.2d at 86 (emphasis added). However, assuming arguendo that the federal magistrate in this case relied upon the presumption, we see no similar constitutional infirmity when the presumption is considered in the determination of probable cause to arrest, as opposed to the determination of guilt or innocence. An arrest warrant issues upon a showing of probable cause to believe a suspect is committing or has committed an offense. Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 213, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 1648, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981). Only a probability and not a prima facie showing of criminal activity is required. State v. Dixon, 153 Ariz. 151, 153, 735 P.2d 761, 763 (1987), citing Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). The United States Supreme Court noted in Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 173, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1309, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949), that [t]here is a large difference between the two things to be proved [ i.e., guilt beyond a reasonable doubt versus probable cause], as well as between the tribunals which determine them, and therefore a like difference in the quanta and modes of proof required to establish them. The Court stressed: Guilt in a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and by evidence confined to that which long experience in the common-law tradition, to some extent embodied in the Constitution, has crystallized into rules of evidence consistent with that standard. These rules are historically grounded rights of our system, developed to safeguard men from dubious and unjust convictions, with resulting forfeitures of life, liberty and property. However, if those standards were to be made applicable in determining probable cause for an arrest or for search and seizure, ... few indeed would be the situations in which an officer, charged with protecting the public interest by enforcing the law, could take effective action toward that end. Brinegar, 338 U.S. at 174, 69 S.Ct. at 1310. As the court in Moore itself noted, [in creating the interstate transportation presumption,] Congress clearly was primarily interested in expediting FBI investigation in kidnapping cases in order to apprehend the criminal and save the victim's life.  Moore, 571 F.2d at 84 (emphasis added). We believe that the use of the presumption in determining probable cause to arrest is consistent with, rather than violative of, this objective, and we do not believe defendant was denied due process merely because the presumption may have been relied upon to invoke federal authority to arrest. The trial court found sufficient probable cause to support the magistrate's issuance of the arrest warrant. On review, we will defer to the trial court's decision on this matter in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Boyer, 106 Ariz. 32, 34, 470 P.2d 439, 441 (1970). Our review of the record indicates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to quash the arrest warrant. B. The Detention and Interrogation Defendant next argues that immediately after the arrest, the presumption of interstate transportation was rebutted by Jack McDonald's statements to the FBI that the victim had not been in defendant's car when the two men left Arizona. According to defendant, those statements were confirmed when the search of the car failed to reveal evidence indicating that the victim had been inside it. He reasons that, because the presumption was rebutted, the FBI violated his right to due process and a speedy trial when it detained him in federal custody for 10 days. Although McDonald told the FBI agents that, to his knowledge, no child had been in the car as it traveled interstate, the agents were not required to accept the statement as either truthful or informed. To suggest that probable cause evaporated immediately after the arrest simply because McDonald told FBI agents that no child had been in the car is tantamount to arguing that an arresting authority is obligated to release a criminal suspect if he or she makes any exculpatory statement, regardless of its veracity. At the time of the arrest, the agents had no reason to accept McDonald's statement as true. It is ludicrous to suggest that they were required to release a suspected kidnapper because his companion denied any interstate transportation. Further, even if we were to conclude that the federal authorities were obligated to release defendant after the veracity of McDonald's statement had been confirmed, the record indicates that they did not receive that verification until after additional federal charges justifying defendant's continued incarceration had been filed against him. McDonald's statement that no child had been in the car was not verified until September 27, when McDonald was given a polygraph test. By September 25, however, a parole violation warrant was forwarded from California to the FBI in San Antonio. This complaint would have justified defendant's detention in federal custody, even if the United States could not have properly detained defendant on the kidnapping charge. Defendant nevertheless suggests that his federal detention was the product of a collusive agreement between Arizona and federal authorities to keep him in custody until Arizona investigators could obtain a warrant to arrest him on state kidnapping charges. Initially, we note that the United States Supreme Court has commented that [f]ree and open cooperation between state and federal law enforcement officers is to be commended and encouraged. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 221, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 1446, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960). Naturally, such cooperation is improper when it is used to facilitate a deprivation of a defendant's rights. However, we find nothing offensive in the joint efforts of the state and federal agencies in this case. Defendant was arrested in Kerrville on September 20 pursuant to a federal warrant. The next day he was transported to San Antonio for his initial appearance. In accordance with rule 5(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the federal magistrate at the initial appearance set defendant's preliminary hearing for October 1  10 days after the initial appearance. At the preliminary hearing, the federal authorities would have been required to establish probable cause that a federal offense had been committed and that defendant had been the perpetrator. See rule 5.1(a); 2 W. LaFave & J. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 14.1, at 237 (1984). Thus, the FBI was given until October 1 to determine whether the necessary interstate nexus existed, and accordingly it was under no obligation prior to the preliminary hearing to release defendant for lack of probable cause. Although we now know that the victim was not taken out of Arizona, her body was not located until several months after defendant's arrest, and the information provided by McDonald did not conclusively negate the possibility of a federal offense. Both state and federal investigations were on-going while defendant was in federal custody. The fact that these investigations subsequently revealed insufficient evidence of a federal offense does not invalidate the detention. The federal charge against defendant was dismissed and defendant was released from federal custody before the government was required to show probable cause at the preliminary hearing. We find no error in the federal government's decision to detain defendant until October 1, 1984. C. The Searches Defendant further argues that the FBI improperly searched his automobile. Before trial, defendant moved to suppress all items found in the two FBI searches. The first search occurred at the automobile dealership in Kerrville, Texas where defendant had taken his car for repair and where he was arrested. The second search was performed two days later at the FBI storage facility in San Antonio pursuant to a federal search warrant. The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that the original search in Kerrville could be supported on two separate bases: (1) the FBI was entitled to perform a search of the vehicle incident to a valid arrest, and (2) defendant had consented to the search. The court further concluded that the search warrant was supported by probable cause and that the subsequent search was therefore valid. 1. The First Search Regarding the initial search of defendant's vehicle, we agree with the trial court that defendant validly consented to the search. [9] Shortly after being brought to the Kerrville Police Station, defendant was given a Consent to Search Form. The form, which was normally used to obtain consent to search a suspect's premises, had been altered to describe defendant's automobile. Specifically, the form used the word premises three times. The form given to defendant still mentioned premises twice, but the word had been crossed out once and had been replaced with the word vehicle and a description of defendant's car. The location of the vehicle was listed as Ken Stoepel Ford, 400 Sidney Baker, Kerrville, TX. [10] An FBI agent read the form to defendant and advised him that he need not consent to the search. Defendant read the form himself, indicated that he understood it, and then signed it. Our review of the record indicates that the trial court properly concluded that this consent was voluntarily given and was not the product of duress or coercion. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 249, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2059, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); see also United States v. Lindsey, 877 F.2d 777, 783 (9th Cir.1989) (trial court's determination of voluntariness upheld by appellate court unless clearly erroneous); United States v. Sealey, 830 F.2d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.1987) (same). Of course, we recognize that the potential for coerced consent is greater when, as in this case, a suspect is in custody when the consent is given. However, the fact of custody alone has never been enough in itself to demonstrate a coerced ... consent to search. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 424, 96 S.Ct. 820, 828, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976). Rather, courts must consider the totality of the circumstances. See Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 227, 93 S.Ct. at 2048. Even considering the cumulative effect of the factors at play in this case, however, we find no indication that defendant's consent was involuntary. In examining the implications of defendant's arrest on his ability to give truly voluntary consent, defendant urges this court to be aware of the `vulnerable subjective state' of ... defendant as well as the possibility of `subtly coercive police questions,' and the inherently coercive nature of custodial interrogation. United States v. Rothman, 492 F.2d 1260, 1265 (9th Cir.1973), quoting Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 229, 247, 93 S.Ct. at 2049, 2058. In giving due consideration to these factors, however, we also consider the sophistication of the accused and whether Miranda warnings were tendered. See United States v. Heimforth, 493 F.2d 970, 972 (9th Cir.1974). Given the facts of this case, we do not believe that defendant's will was overcome by any coercive atmosphere attendant to the arrest and detention. Indeed, as the trial court found, rather than exhibiting trepidation and concern, defendant was calm and inquisitive during his arrest and in his conversations with the FBI. Defendant also was read his Miranda warning prior to giving consent, and he was specifically told by the FBI agents that he need not consent to the search of his vehicle. Defendant nevertheless contends that he signed the consent form because the FBI agents threatened to obtain a search warrant if he did not cooperate. Our review of the record does not reveal such an ultimatum. Even if one had been made, however, we would not find that event sufficient to render defendant's consent involuntary in this case. See, e.g., United States v. Talkington, 843 F.2d 1041, 1049 (7th Cir.1988) (when considered in the totality of the circumstances, a defendant's consent may be free and voluntary despite fact that agents threaten to obtain warrant if defendant does not consent); United States v. Compton, 704 F.2d 739, 742 (5th Cir.1983) (threat made by federal law enforcement officers to obtain search warrant if suspect did not cooperate did not invalidate written consent to search). Further, defendant's argument that his physical and mental state prevented him from making a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights is not borne out by the record. Although defendant may have smoked marijuana 3 days prior to his arrest, McDonald testified that he did not see defendant consume any alcohol or drugs after they left Tucson. In addition, the FBI agents observed no indication that defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. We concur with the trial court that alcohol and drug use did not leave defendant incapable of voluntarily consenting to the search. See United States v. Rambo, 789 F.2d 1289, 1297 (8th Cir.1986) ([T]he mere fact that one has taken drugs, or is intoxicated, or mentally agitated, does not render consent involuntary.... In each case, `[t]he question is one of mental awareness so that the act of consent was the consensual act of one who knew what he was doing and had a reasonable appreciation of the nature and significance of his actions.'), quoting United States v. Elrod, 441 F.2d 353, 355 (5th Cir.1971); see also United States v. Gay, 774 F.2d 368, 376-77 (10th Cir.1985) (suspect who staggered and swayed under intoxication was still capable of giving consent to search glove box). We also are unconvinced that defendant was misled by the FBI's use of the altered consent form. Although the standard form was intended for consent to search premises, it had been altered to apply to defendant's vehicle. We recognize that the alteration contained an error (the form referred to defendant's car as a 260Z rather than a 280Z), but we do not believe that the error prevented defendant from understanding that he was consenting to the search of his automobile. Despite the word change and the inaccuracy in the description of the vehicle, the form clearly referred to the search of a black 1975 Datsun with defendant's California license plate number. Defendant further argues, however, that even if he did consent to the search, the actual search conducted by the FBI exceeded the scope of the consent given. We disagree. Defendant consented to a complete search and authorized the agents to take any letters, papers, materials or other property which they may desire. He asserts on appeal that he did not authorize the opening of bags, suitcases, picnic baskets, or looking underneath these items. We find no merit in this argument. In United States v. Covello, 657 F.2d 151 (7th Cir.1981), the court addressed a defendant's claim that FBI agents had exceeded the scope of the consent given in a form identical to the consent form at issue in this case. In reversing the trial court's suppression of evidence, the court noted: The form authorized the agents to conduct a complete search of the car. (Emphasis supplied.) The district court would read complete to mean incomplete. Furthermore, those agents were authorized to take from [the] premises any letters, papers, materials, or other property which they may desire. In the absence of the word complete, one possibly might construe the consent in a limited fashion, however, the addition of the word complete indicates that consent was extended to everything within the automobile. Such a construction is further supported by the permission given to the agents to remove items from the automobile. Letters and papers would not be expected to be lying around loose. They would be contained in something. Covello, 657 F.2d at 154; see also United States v. Anderson, 859 F.2d 1171, 1176 (3d Cir.1988). We find defendant's assertion that he somehow intended to limit the manner in which the search was executed disingenuous at best. Accordingly, we find no error. Thus, we conclude that defendant knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search of his vehicle, and that the search was conducted within the bounds of the consent given. We therefore find no error in the trial court's refusal to suppress evidence obtained from the search. 2. The Second Search We likewise concur in the trial court's conclusion that probable cause existed to justify the second search performed pursuant to the federal search warrant. See State v. DeBoucher, 135 Ariz. 220, 227, 660 P.2d 471, 478 (App. 1982) (reviewing courts give great deference to magistrate's probable cause determination). Defendant argues, however, that the trial court should have suppressed evidence obtained in the second search because the FBI lacked authority to tow his car from Kerrville to San Antonio before obtaining the search warrant. We disagree. Defendant was arrested at the Ken Stoepel Ford dealership in Kerrville on September 20. Once defendant was in custody, the FBI became responsible for the car's safekeeping and the vehicle was properly seized incident to the arrest. The car remained at the dealership overnight, where it was guarded by FBI agents. This situation, however, would not have been feasible on an extended basis. Being responsible for the vehicle, the FBI had the authority to move it to the Bureau's San Antonio facility, where it could be more conveniently secured. D. Defendant's Statements to the FBI Defendant next argues that he was improperly advised of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and that the trial court therefore should have suppressed statements elicited from him after his arrest. [11] We find no merit in this argument. Although we may conclude that defendant waived his Miranda rights only if the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation reveal both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension, see Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 1141, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986), citing Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2572, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979), our review of the record does not indicate, as defendant suggests, that the statements, admissions, or tests elicited from him were a direct result of either physical or mental coercion. Nor does it reflect any discrepancy in defendant's ability to comprehend his waiver. Specifically, we are unable to discern any improper, coercive activity by FBI agents who repeatedly administered defendant's Miranda warnings, both orally and on printed forms. Further, defendant stated that he understood his rights and, contrary to his present assertion, he read part of his waiver of rights form aloud before signing it, thereby indicating to those present that he could read and understand. Although defendant mentioned that he was tired, he continued to talk with the agents and made no request or suggestion that he wished to end the discussion. Also, as we have noted, defendant's ability to comprehend was not impaired by drug or alcohol use at the time of his arrest, and his demeanor was both calm and inquisitive. In short, defendant's sweeping allegations of physical and mental coercion are not substantiated by the record. We find no irregularity in defendant's custodial interrogation and we conclude that the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the statements he made to the FBI concerning his activities on and around September 17, 1984. Perhaps realizing the ethereal nature of his coercion claims, defendant argues that, even if no Miranda violation occurred, his statements were nevertheless inadmissible at trial because they were irrelevant, immaterial, and highly prejudicial. The statements were admitted, in redacted form, through the testimony of FBI special agent Patrick C. McCormick, who interviewed defendant in Kerrville. Although defendant's argument is not entirely clear, he also apparently asserts that because his statements were neither decidedly exculpatory nor decidedly inculpatory, they were not admissions within the meaning of rule 801(d)(2)(A), Arizona Rules of Evidence. The statements therefore were hearsay and, because they did not fall within any recognized hearsay exception, they were inadmissible. [12] Rule 801(d)(2)(A) provides that a statement is not hearsay if it is offered against a party and is his own statement, made in his individual capacity. Defendant's statements to the FBI easily satisfy the facial requirements of the rule. We find no support for defendant's argument that the statements were not admissions because they were neither exculpatory nor inculpatory. For a defendant's statement to be an admission, it is not necessary to show that the statement was against the interest of the party at the time it was made. 1 M. Udall, J. Livermore, P. Escher, & G. McIlvain, Arizona Practice: Law of Evidence § 125, at 255 (3d ed. 1991). Rather, [t]he only limitation, in short, to the use of an opposing party's words is the rule of relevance. Udall at 257. Certainly, a criminal suspect's statements about his activities on the day of an alleged crime are relevant. The only remaining limitation on the admissibility of defendant's statements was the possibility that the probative value of the statements was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See rule 403. This determination was within the trial court's discretion and we will reverse the trial court's decision only in the event of an abuse of that discretion. State v. Neal, 143 Ariz. 93, 101, 692 P.2d 272, 280 (1984); State v. Clabourne, 142 Ariz. 335, 343, 690 P.2d 54, 62 (1984). We find no abuse in this case. Although Agent McCormick was permitted to testify that defendant told the FBI he was in the victim's neighborhood the day she disappeared because he was looking for a person from whom he eventually purchased marijuana, we do not conclude that the trial court erred in determining that the probative value of this information outweighed its potentially inflammatory effects on the jury. Given the gravity of the crime for which defendant was on trial and the fact that the jury had been voir dired concerning their attitude toward drugs, we are unconvinced that the reference to marijuana was impermissibly prejudicial. We find no error in the admission of defendant's statements. 8. Defendant's Motion for Continuance Defendant argues that the trial court violated his right to a fair trial when it denied his request for a continuance so his attorney could interview the prosecution's paint expert and other witnesses. The prosecution's first paint expert, an FBI agent assigned to examine defendant's car and the victim's bicycle, died prior to trial. James Corby, the agent who assumed responsibility for the case, conducted his own tests, choosing not to rely on the first expert's findings and conclusions. Defense counsel apparently did not receive all of Corby's findings until the day before he was scheduled to interview Corby  approximately one month before trial. Counsel claimed that, as a result of the late disclosure, he was unable adequately to prepare for the agent's testimony. On appeal, defendant also argues that denying the continuance prevented his trial counsel from interviewing several other witnesses. As the state notes, however, only three of the witnesses mentioned by defendant were called at trial. Rule 8.5(b), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides that [a] continuance shall be granted only upon a showing that extraordinary circumstances exist and that delay is indispensable to the interests of justice. The grant of a continuance is an exercise of the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Amarillas, 141 Ariz. 620, 622, 688 P.2d 628, 630 (1984), citing State v. Sullivan, 130 Ariz. 213, 635 P.2d 501 (1981). Further, the trial court's denial of a motion for continuance will not be disturbed unless (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying the motion, and (2) prejudice resulted. Amarillas, 141 Ariz. at 622, 688 P.2d at 630. We do not believe that the trial court abused its discretion in this case. Although the court denied defendant's motion, it held that the defense would be permitted to interview any witness before he or she testified, even if recesses were necessary to accommodate the interviews. Of course, interviewing witnesses in the course of trial certainly is not the most desirable procedure. However, we will not second guess the trial court's decision in this matter. Defense counsel had been involved in the case for well over one year, and more than two years had elapsed since defendant's arrest. We do not believe that the trial court exceeded its discretion in determining that the defense's failure to interview various witnesses, most of whom had not been selected by the prosecution to testify at trial, did not constitute extraordinary circumstances necessitating a delay indispensable to the interests of justice. Further, regarding evidence concerning the paint sample, the record indicates that the defense was not entirely blameless in creating the delays in preparation. For example, the defense was aware that the first paint expert was desperately ill with cancer long before his death, yet, despite attempts by the prosecution to facilitate the expert's deposition, the defense did not attempt to preserve the testimony for trial. Most importantly, defendant is unable to demonstrate that any prejudice actually inhered from the trial court's ruling. The record does not indicate that defendant's trial counsel was ineffective or impaired in any way during opening statements or in his examination of witnesses. Concerning the state's paint expert, the defense's pretrial interview with Agent Corby lasted an entire day, and, although he was unable to interview Corby about certain graphs and charts supplied the day before the interview, defense counsel's cross-examination of the agent at trial was extensive and reflected no lack of preparation. Thus, even if a continuance to permit interviews would have been advisable in this case, defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court's determination that the case should proceed to trial. 9. Jury Selection Defendant next argues that Maricopa County's juror selection procedure denied him a trial before an impartial jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community. Specifically, defendant posits that the county's practice of selecting jury pools from voter registration and Department of Motor Vehicles lists results in the exclusion of cognizable groups from the jury venire because those groups are generally underrepresented on the voter and DMV lists. For example, according to defendant, of the approximately 130 prospective jurors in the pool for his trial, two were Black and approximately 6 were Hispanic. Defendant also addresses other perceived shortcomings in the jury selection process, both in general and with specific reference to his case. He contends that the length of his trial resulted in the exclusion of persons who were not employed by businesses having a policy of compensating their employees during jury duty. He argues that the $12.00 per diem granted jurors, see A.R.S. § 21-221, was insufficient to compensate adequately those jurors whose incomes were not supplemented by their employers. As a result, he claims that this cognizable group of persons not compensated by their employers during jury duty was underrepresented in the jury panel. Further, he asserts that employees in the Jury Commissioner's Office were improperly allowed to exclude prospective jurors without standards, guidelines, or court review. That is, members of the Jury Commissioner's staff were permitted to excuse jurors who contacted the Commissioner's office after receiving their summonses and who claimed some form of hardship. According to defendant, as a result of these undocumented, unsupervised excusals, many prospective jurors were removed from the pool before the merits of their hardships could be evaluated. Concerning defendant's claim that Blacks and Hispanics were underrepresented in the jury pool, we note initially that the mere observation that a particular group is underrepresented is insufficient to support a constitutional challenge. State v. Lee, 114 Ariz. 101, 103, 559 P.2d 657, 659 (1976). To succeed on a claim that underrepresentation in a particular case violated the sixth amendment fair cross-section requirement, defendant must make a prima facie showing that (1) the group alleged to be excluded is a distinctive group in the community; (2) the representation of the group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process. Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 S.Ct. 664, 668, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979). Although we recognize that Blacks and Hispanics qualify as distinctive groups under the Duren analysis, see Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 495, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 1280, 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977) (Hispanics are distinct group); United States v. Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541, 547 (9th Cir.1989) (same); Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 498, 92 S.Ct. 2163, 2166, 33 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972) (Blacks are distinct group); People v. Harris, 36 Cal.3d 36, 51, 201 Cal. Rptr. 782, 790, 679 P.2d 433, 441 (1984) (Blacks and Hispanics are cognizable groups for purposes of fair cross-section analysis), and even assuming that a venire of 130 individuals which includes two Blacks and approximately 6 Hispanics indicates an underrepresentation of those groups, defendant has failed to satisfy the third requirement of Duren. At no time has defendant provided or analyzed information indicating that either of these groups is systematically excluded in the jury selection process in a way that results in its underrepresentation. Of course, without such information and analysis, this court cannot determine whether an identifiable underrepresentation is the result of systematic exclusion in the jury selection process. Thus, we express no opinion on whether exclusive use of voter registration and DMV lists could result in the systematic exclusion of certain minorities in the community. We hold only that defendant's reliance on isolated, subjective observations of alleged underrepresentation is insufficient to support his sixth amendment claim. Similarly, defendant's argument that the length of his trial resulted in the exclusion of persons who were not employed by businesses having a policy of compensating their employees during jury duty also fails to survive Duren. The sixth amendment fair cross-section guarantee concerns the representation of distinctive groups in the community. See Duren, 439 U.S. at 364, 99 S.Ct. at 668. That is, to succeed in a fair cross-section claim, a defendant must demonstrate that the persons he asserts were excluded from the venire were members of a group that is a recognizable, distinct class, singled out for different treatment under the laws, as written or as applied. Castaneda, 430 U.S. at 494, 97 S.Ct. at 1280. In asserting simply that individuals who are not employed by larger corporations were excluded from the jury pool, defendant has failed to demonstrate that such individuals constitute a distinct group. Indeed, defendant has made no credible effort  either before the trial court or in his briefs to this court  to prove that the persons he claims were targeted for exclusion are a constitutionally significant group under Duren. Further, even if defendant had attempted to fulfill his obligation under Duren, we express serious doubts about whether individuals not employed by large corporations constitute a distinctive group. The hurdle a defendant must overcome to establish the existence of a group for sixth amendment purposes is set forth clearly in United States v. Abell, 552 F. Supp. 316 (D.Me. 1982), and we borrow substantially from that opinion to illustrate defendant's burden in this case: In order for a class to be legally cognizable, it must be characterized by a common thread ... a basic similarity in attitudes or ideas or experiences which ... cannot be adequately represented if the group is excluded from the jury selection process. United States v. Potter, 552 F.2d 901, 904 (9th Cir.1977). There must be a definite and ascertainable membership: A cognizable group is not one whose membership shifts from day to day or whose membership can be arbitrarily selected. United States v. Guzman, 337 F. Supp. 140, 143 (S.D.N.Y. 1972), affirmed, 468 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 937, 93 S.Ct. 1397, 35 L.Ed.2d 602 (1973). In addition to internal cohesion, the group must be perceived as distinct by the community at large. Evidence of community discrimination tends to indicate that a group [is] sufficiently distinct from the community to be a credible target for the exercise of community prejudices. Ciudadanos Unidos de San Juan v. Hidalgo Cty., 622 F.2d 807, 818 n. 21 (5th Cir.1980). In all but the clearest cases, such as classes based on race or gender, the presence of a cognizable class within the community must be established with respect to the particular community as a matter of fact: Throughout our history differences in race and color have defined easily identifiable groups which have at times required the aid of courts in securing equal treatment under the laws. But community prejudices are not static, and from time to time other differences from the community norm may define other groups which need the same protection. Whether such a group exists within a community is a question of fact. (Emphasis added). Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 478-79, 74 S.Ct. 667, 670, 98 L.Ed. 866 (1954). Abell, 552 F. Supp. at 322. We do not believe that those people whose employers do not compensate them while they serve jury duty share such an internal cohesion or a basic similarity in attitudes or experiences to characterize them as a distinct group. Accord People v. Harris, 47 Cal.3d 1047, 1076-78, 767 P.2d 619, 637-38, 255 Cal. Rptr. 352, 370-71 (1989) (persons whose employers were unwilling to continue payment of salaries for the protracted period of a capital case did not constitute a cognizable class). And, more importantly, defendant has offered no evidence to refute our impressions of his position. See Harris, 47 Cal.3d at 1078 n. 12, 767 P.2d at 638 n. 12, 255 Cal. Rptr. at 371 n. 12 (Defendant asserts that self-employed persons `surely share a common perspective,' but neither supports that assumption with anything in the record or of which judicial notice might be taken, nor demonstrates that none of the other jurors could have shared that perspective.). We therefore conclude that defendant's argument falls short of the constitutional mark established in Duren, and we accordingly find no constitutional infirmity in the juror selection process in this case. We note that defendant also asserts that the juror selection process in this case violated equal protection principles. Even though we believe that defendant has standing to raise this claim, see, e.g., Powers v. Ohio, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), we hold that defendant has failed to establish the degree of underrepresentation by comparing the proportion of the group in the total population to the proportion called to serve as ... jurors, over a significant period of time. Castaneda, 430 U.S. at 494, 97 S.Ct. at 1280. Concerning his claim that persons not employed by large corporations were systematically excluded from the jury pool, we hold that, as with his sixth amendment claim, defendant has failed to demonstrate that those persons constitute a distinct group for purposes of equal protection analysis. See Castaneda, 430 U.S. at 494, 97 S.Ct. at 1280. We therefore find no merit in defendant's equal protection arguments. We likewise find no merit in defendant's argument that members of the Jury Commissioner's staff improperly excused prospective jurors who contacted the Commissioner's office claiming undue hardship. The office of `jury commissioner' was established to assist the courts with the jury selection process and to insulate judges from having to consider every request for excusal. State v. Fendler, 127 Ariz. 464, 470, 622 P.2d 23, 29 (App. 1980). According to defendant, court personnel excused prospective jurors because they were not citizens, they no longer lived in Maricopa County, they had a felony record, they did not speak English, they were responsible for young children or elderly people in their home, and for various other hardships. He asserts that these dismissals were improper because the trial judge did not automatically dismiss other prospective jurors who suffered similar hardships. Given, however, that 136 prospective jurors were qualified for defendant's trial, we fail to see how defendant was prejudiced by the excusals granted by court personnel, who were acting within the broad discretion afforded the Jury Commissioner's Office. See Fendler, 127 Ariz. at 470, 622 P.2d at 29 (jury commissioners are given broad measure of unilateral discretion in determining whether a prospective juror should be excused from service). As the trial judge himself noted, I am satisfied, from those 137 or so [prospective jurors] that we did see here in this courtroom, that we got a fairly good cross section of people as far as ages and economic backgrounds, and every other way that I can think of. Although some prospective jurors were excused by the Commissioner's office due to hardship, defendant was still afforded an ample pool from which to select a fair and impartial jury. As we have previously held, A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a fair and impartial jury for the trial of his case, but he is not entitled to be tried by any particular jury; therefore, unless the record affirmatively shows that such a fair and impartial jury was not secured, the conviction must be confirmed. State v. Arnett, 119 Ariz. 38, 50, 579 P.2d 542, 554 (1978). Given that a pool of over 130 prospective jurors was provided and nothing in the record indicates that the jury selected from those candidates fell short of the requisite standards of fairness and impartiality, we reject defendant's claim that he was prejudiced by court personnel's excusal of prospective jurors. 10. Death Qualification of Jury Defendant next argues that, because juries in Arizona do not determine sentencing, the trial court should not have death qualified the jury during voir dire. He asserts that, by engaging in a death qualification of the prospective jurors, the trial court biased and prejudiced the jury. We disagree. We have expressly held that jury questioning regarding capital punishment is permissible where the questioning determines bias of a nature which would prevent a juror from performing his duty. Under the procedure used in Arizona in death penalty cases, the jurors' duty is to determine guilt or innocence, while the sentence of death is solely the responsibility of the trial judge. Nevertheless, voir dire questioning related to a juror's views on capital punishment is permitted to determine whether those views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of the juror's duties to decide the case in accordance with the court's instructions and the juror's oath. State v. Martinez-Villareal, 145 Ariz. 441, 449, 702 P.2d 670, 678 (1985) (citations omitted); see also State v. White, 168 Ariz. 500, 509-10, 815 P.2d 869, 878-79 (1991); State v. Wiley, 144 Ariz. 525, 533-35, 698 P.2d 1244, 1252-54 (1985), overruled on other grounds, State v. Superior Court, 157 Ariz. 541, 760 P.2d 541 (1988). The United States Supreme Court has indicated that an impartial jury consists of nothing more than `jurors who will conscientiously apply the law and find the facts.' Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 178, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 1767, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986), quoting Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 423, 105 S.Ct. 844, 852, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985) (emphasis omitted). Defendant neither asserts nor demonstrates that any participant on his jury failed to fulfill this obligation. See Evans v. Lewis, 855 F.2d 631, 635 (9th Cir.1988). We therefore find no error. 11. Jury Instructions Defendant raises numerous alleged errors in the instructions given to the jury and in the trial court's failure to instruct on certain issues. We address each challenged instruction separately. A. Kidnapping Instruction Over defendant's objection, the trial court gave the following instruction regarding the kidnapping charge: The crime of kidnapping requires proof of the following three things. 1. The defendant knowingly restrained another person's movements, and 2. The restraint was accomplished: A. By physical force, intimidation or deception, and B. In a manner which interfered substantially with the person's movements, and 3. The restraint was with the intent to inflict death, physical injury or a sexual offense on a person. Defendant claims that this instruction was given in error because the state failed to present sufficient evidence to prove kidnapping or the occurrence of a sexual offense and because the term sexual offense is vague and ambiguous. We find no merit in these arguments. As we have already concluded, ample evidence existed to substantiate the kidnapping charge. See supra Part 1(A). Further, the state was required to prove only that defendant kidnapped the victim with the intent to commit a sexual offense. See A.R.S. § 13-1304(A). Thus, although the state did not establish that defendant actually committed a sexual offense, it presented evidence to the jury from which it could conclude that defendant had the intent to commit such an offense when he abducted her. That was all the state was required to do. See, e.g., State v. Adrian, 111 Ariz. 14, 18, 522 P.2d 1091, 1095 (1974) (It should be emphasized that the offense of kidnapping with intent to commit rape can be established without proof of a subsequent rape where the circumstances indicate an intention to rape.). We therefore find no error in instructing the jury on the kidnapping charge. In addition, we find no ambiguity or vagueness in the instruction itself. Despite defendant's argument to the contrary, we conclude that the term sexual offense was sufficiently specific to guide the jury in determining whether defendant's actions fell within the scope of the kidnapping statute. As one court has noted, People of average intelligence will understand the term `sexual offense' to mean illegal sexual conduct. In light of this common, ordinary meaning, no definitional instruction was required. Ordinary words and phrases in statutes require no definition because they are presumed to be understood by the jurors. People v. Dasher, 198 Cal. App.3d 28, 36, 243 Cal. Rptr. 486, 490 (1988). Further, as the state correctly observed, no reason exists for requiring specific instructions to be given about the various forms of sexual activity envisioned by the statute because any sexual activity with an 8-year-old child would be a crime, and thus would be a sexual offense that would support the kidnapping charge. B. Felony Murder Instruction At trial, defendant objected to instructions given to the jury concerning felony murder. Defendant continues to argue that insufficient evidence existed to support the felony murder charge and that the state abused its discretion in seeking only a felony murder instruction rather than a premeditated murder instruction. We have already concluded that sufficient evidence existed to support the jury's verdict on the felony murder charge. See supra Part 1(B). Defendant's first argument therefore fails. Defendant's claim that the prosecution abused its discretion in seeking a felony murder conviction is likewise unsupportable. The essence of this claim is that the prosecution somehow gained an unfair advantage by charging felony murder because it did not have to prove specific intent on the part of defendant. This analysis is clearly wrong. First, the prosecution was required to prove the specific intent to commit the predicate felony, and the mens rea necessary to satisfy the premeditation element of first-degree murder is supplied by the specific intent required for the felony. State v. McLoughlin, 139 Ariz. 481, 485-86, 679 P.2d 504, 508-09 (1984), citing State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. 441, 641 P.2d 1285 (1982). We have upheld the constitutionality of this procedure, McLoughlin, 139 Ariz. at 486, 679 P.2d at 509, and defendant's argument fails to persuade us that our prior holding was incorrect. Therefore, defendant's assertion that the prosecution was not required to prove specific intent is inaccurate. Second, the prosecutor has broad discretion  even in capital cases  to charge defendant with the crimes he or she thinks appropriate, and we will not interfere with that discretion unless the prosecutor acts illegally or in excess of his or her powers. State v. Murphy, 113 Ariz. 416, 418, 555 P.2d 1110, 1112 (1976). Aside from his assertion that the state gained an unfair advantage by pursuing the felony murder charge, defendant has not demonstrated how the prosecutor's decision to seek the felony murder conviction in this case constituted an abuse of discretion or an illegal action, and our review of the record fails to reveal any impropriety in the prosecutor's charging decision. We therefore find no error. C. Unanimous Verdict Instruction Before the jury retired to deliberate, the trial court, over defendant's objection, gave the following instruction concerning the unanimity of their verdict: The verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. In order to return a verdict, it is necessary that each of you agree thereto. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, your verdict in this case, when you return a verdict, must be unanimous. It is your duty as jurors to consult with one another and deliberate with a view toward reaching that agreement if you can do so without violence to your individual judgment. Each of you must decide this case for yourself. You must do so only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with the other jurors. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to reexamine your own views and change your opinion if you are convinced it was erroneous, but do not surrender your honest convictions as to the weight or the effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of the other jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. Defendant argues that this instruction was coercive rather than instructive, and he takes particular issue with the court's instruction that the jurors should deliberate with a view toward reaching an agreement if they could do so without violence to their individual judgment. Although defendant does not elaborate on why this statement is especially coercive, [13] we presume his argument is that the without violence language suggested to the jurors that they could refuse to agree on a verdict only under the most extraordinary or extreme circumstances and that the statement therefore coerced the jury into reaching a verdict. We disagree. Initially, we note that coercion by the trial court most commonly occurs during jury deliberations when the court tries to move a deadlocked jury toward a verdict. State v. McCutcheon, 162 Ariz. 54, 59, 781 P.2d 31, 36 (1989). In this case, the challenged statements were made before the jury began deliberating, suggesting that the dynamics between the judge and jury lacked the coercive atmosphere present when a judge impresses upon a deadlocked or struggling jury the court's desire for a verdict. Nevertheless, the timing of the instruction, although highly relevant, is not dispositive of the issue. Rather, we will find coerciveness if, under the totality of the circumstances, the trial court's actions or remarks displaced the independent judgment of the jurors. State v. McCutcheon, 150 Ariz. 317, 320, 723 P.2d 666, 669 (1986). We find that the trial court's remarks did not have an improper effect upon a reasonable juror. The jury had not yet retired, and thus the jurors were not suffering from the fatigue or frustration that may accompany difficult hours of divisive deliberation which may, in turn, cause jurors to be susceptible to undue pressure from the bench. Further, the trial court expressly informed the jurors not to surrender their honest convictions concerning the weight of the evidence solely because of other jurors' opinions or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. We cannot conclude from these remarks that the jury received an improper message from the court encouraging them to compromise their individual impressions of the case so that a verdict could be reached. We therefore find no error in the unanimous verdict instruction. D. Denial of Willits Instructions Defendant requested, and the trial court refused, the following instruction concerning the state's alleged failure to preserve evidence with potentially exculpatory value: You are instructed if the State did not conduct tests or did tests without disclosing the results, then you may infer that the evidence would have been against the State. This type of instruction is known as a Willits instruction, see State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184, 393 P.2d 274 (1964), and it permits a jury to draw an inference against the prosecution if the state allows evidence within its control to be destroyed. State v. Broughton, 156 Ariz. 394, 399, 752 P.2d 483, 488 (1988). This form of instruction is appropriate when a defendant proves that (1) the state failed to preserve material and reasonably accessible evidence that had a tendency to exonerate the accused, and (2) prejudice resulted. State v. Reffitt, 145 Ariz. 452, 461, 702 P.2d 681, 690 (1985); see Broughton, 156 Ariz. at 399, 752 P.2d at 488. A Willits instruction, however, is not appropriate if defendant fails to establish that the lost evidence would have had a tendency to exonerate him. Broughton, 156 Ariz. at 399, 752 P.2d at 488. Defendant focuses on two pieces of evidence that he argues justified his proposed Willits instruction: the victim's bones, which were interred before defendant's second trial counsel had the remains examined by additional defense experts, and certain FBI and DPS test results, which defendant claims the state did not disclose. Over defense counsel's objection, the trial court refused the proposed Willits instruction based on this evidence. That decision was within the trial court's discretion and we will not reverse it absent a clear abuse of that discretion. See State v. Perez, 141 Ariz. 459, 464, 687 P.2d 1214, 1219 (1984). We find no such abuse. Concerning the victim's bones, we have already concluded that the state did not act improperly in allowing the burial. See supra Part 5(A)(1). Thus, defendant was not entitled to a Willits instruction for that evidence. Further, we find defendant's allegation that the state failed to disclose certain FBI and DPS test results unsupported by the record. Defendant does not attempt to specify which information was withheld by the prosecution, let alone how he was prejudiced by its withholding. We also view defendant's assertion in light of the state's statement to the trial court that [a]ll the scientific examinations or testing of the evidence was disclosed under Rule 15. Therefore, given that defendant raises nothing more than a vague accusation of prosecutorial improprieties concerning unnamed test results, and any such impropriety is not apparent by our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Willits instruction. Defendant also requested a Willits instruction concerning portions of a 1 1/2 to 2 hour interview he gave Lupita Murrillo, a Tucson television reporter on March 4, 1985. The edited and televised version was reduced to 3 or 4 minutes. Apparently, the prosecution attempted to have the outtakes of the original interview preserved, but was unsuccessful. During its case-in-chief, the state presented the testimony of John Bowron, a Pima County Sheriff's Department corrections officer who was present during the interview. Officer Bowron testified that, during the meeting with Ms. Murrillo, defendant recanted his original story that he had stabbed a man in a drug transaction on the day the victim disappeared. According to Bowron, defendant informed Murrillo that he told this story to his companions at De Anza Park so that they would think he was a tough guy. At trial, defendant complained that because the entire, unedited interview was unavailable for the jury's viewing, he was prejudiced by Bowron's testimony and that he was therefore entitled to a Willits instruction concerning the outtakes of that interview. He requested, and the court refused, the following instruction: If the defendant made statements to KVOA-TV Television in Tucson for one hour to one and a half hours, but a very small portion of that statement was recalled by the witness and preserved by KVOA-TV, you can infer that additional statements were made by the defendant indicating that he is not guilty of the charges. To succeed in obtaining a Willits instruction, defendant must convince the trial court that he was actually prejudiced by the prosecution's failure to preserve the obviously material, and reasonably accessible evidence. Perez, 141 Ariz. at 464, 687 P.2d at 1219. Assuming arguendo that the interview tapes were both obviously material and reasonably accessible, we nevertheless conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the requested Willits instruction because defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice. Defendant argues on appeal that he was prejudiced because the complete story was not presented to the jury. With the actual tapes no longer available, however, Lupita Murrillo was the only other source from which the complete story  or a reasonable reconstruction  could be obtained. As the state informed the trial court, however, Ms. Murrillo's own interview with counsel not only substantiated Officer Bowron's testimony, but provided even more damaging recollections of her discussion with defendant, apparently including an admission by defendant that he in fact had had blood on his hands when he returned to De Anza Park. Our review of the record has revealed nothing to contradict this account of Ms. Murrillo's recollection of the interview. Thus, defendant failed to demonstrate that the absent evidence would have tended to exonerate him. See Broughton, 156 Ariz. at 399, 752 P.2d at 488. Given these facts from which to rule on the requested Willits instruction, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Defendant failed to establish any prejudice caused by the unavailable evidence. Accordingly, he was not entitled to his proposed Willits instruction. E. Denial of Unlawful Imprisonment Instruction Defendant next argues that the trial court's refusal of defendant's request to instruct the jury that unlawful imprisonment is a lesser included offense of the crime of kidnapping amounted to reversible error. See State v. Caudillo, 124 Ariz. 410, 604 P.2d 1121 (1979); State v. Celaya, 135 Ariz. 248, 660 P.2d 849 (1983); A.R.S. § 13-1303 (A person commits unlawful imprisonment by knowingly restraining another person.). Defendant's argument, however, disregards a crucial aspect of our analysis in both Caudillo and Celaya: that the evidence presented at trial must support the giving of a lesser included offense instruction. See, e.g., Celaya, 135 Ariz. at 253, 660 P.2d at 854 ( Where a defense theory is reasonably supported by the evidence, it is reversible error not to give [the lesser included offense instruction]....) (emphasis added); State v. Schroeder, 95 Ariz. 255, 259, 389 P.2d 255, 257 (1964) (lesser included offense instructions are justified only when evidence exists upon which the jury could convict defendant of a lesser offense). Although defendant suggests that, upon reviewing the evidence, the jury could have concluded that he accidentally struck the victim's bike and then picked her up to return her to her home unharmed, this suggestion runs counter to the entire thrust of the defense presented at trial. Defense counsel offered an alibi defense, claiming not that defendant might have taken the girl and released her unharmed, but that defendant had absolutely no contact with the child at all. [14] As we held in State v. Caldera, 141 Ariz. 634, 637, 688 P.2d 642, 645 (1984), when a defendant proffers an alibi defense, the record usually contains little evidence to support an instruction on a lesser included offense. Because defendant argued solely that he did not commit the offense charged and the state argued solely that he did commit the offense, no theory is advanced to support the theory of a lesser included offense. Caldera, 141 Ariz. at 637, 688 P.2d at 645. Thus, in this case, the defense did not attempt to argue that defendant came into contact with the victim and released her unharmed. Concerning the possibility that, despite defendant's alibi defense, the jury nevertheless could have been convinced by the evidence presented that he had taken the child and then released her, we find our discussion in Schroeder persuasive: There remains the possibility, of course, that the jury might simply disbelieve the state's evidence on one element of the crime. If so, it is argued, conviction of a lesser offense is still possible. This reasoning, however, would require instructions on all offenses theoretically included in every criminal information [or indictment]. The law does not require or even permit such a procedure. Schroeder, 95 Ariz. at 259, 389 P.2d at 258. We therefore find no error in the trial court's failure to instruct on the lesser included offense of unlawful imprisonment. We also find no error, fundamental or otherwise, in the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on kidnapping as a class 4 felony, in which the victim is released voluntarily by defendant without physical injury in a safe place. See A.R.S. § 13-1304(B). As with unlawful imprisonment, the evidence presented at trial did not support such an instruction. [15] F. Denial of Instructions on Lesser Included Offenses of First Degree Murder In the same vein, defendant attacks the trial court's failure to instruct the jury sua sponte on the lesser included offenses of first degree felony murder, claiming that this refusal amounted to fundamental error. Indeed, because defendant's trial counsel explained to the trial court that he did not believe instructions on the lesser included offenses of murder were appropriate in this case, [16] the failure to instruct the jury on these matters would have to be fundamental error to merit reversal. Our prior rulings, however, clearly demonstrate that a court does not err in refusing to instruct a jury on lesser included offenses in a felony murder case. See State v. LaGrand, 153 Ariz. 21, 30, 734 P.2d 563, 572 (1987). As we emphasized in LaGrand, no lesser included offense to felony murder exists because the mens rea necessary to satisfy the premeditation element of first degree murder is supplied by the specific intent required for the felony. LaGrand, 153 Ariz. at 30, 734 P.2d at 572, citing State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. 441, 443-44, 641 P.2d 1285, 1287-88 (1982); Celaya, 135 Ariz. at 255, 660 P.2d at 856. Thus, we find defendant's argument wholly without merit and hold that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte about lesser included offenses of felony murder. 12, 13 and 14. Publicity and the Jury Issues 12, 13 and 14 are discussed below in part 15. 15. Publicity and Fair Trial Defendant raises four issues concerning the impact of pretrial and trial publicity on his right to a fair trial. Those issues are (12) whether the jury was biased by the publicity attendant to his case; (13) whether the trial court should have sequestered the jury during voir dire and trial; (14) whether the trial court improperly denied defendant's motion to change venue; and (15) whether defendant was otherwise denied a fair trial because of the publicity surrounding his prosecution. Because these challenges all focus on the extent and effect of publicity in this case, and because they overlap significantly in the issues they raise, we address them together. As we have noted, this case generated significant media attention. Indeed, publicity in Tucson and Pima County was so extensive that the trial court granted a change of venue to Maricopa County. The court had expressed to both the prosecution and the defense its desire to keep the new trial location confidential, but as we discussed in our analysis of defendant's prosecutorial misconduct claims, the prosecutor revealed the new venue in court while the media was present. See supra Part 5(C), n. 5. As a result, argues defendant, the media attention did not subside, but rather relocated to Phoenix, where it pervaded television and newspaper coverage. Defendant asserts that this media coverage impeded the selection of a fair and impartial jury, and he asserts that the problem was exacerbated by the trial court's refusal to grant a subsequent change of venue and its failure to sequester the jury throughout voir dire and trial. Defendant further argues that the publicity during his trial, which included gavel-to-gavel television coverage of the proceedings broadcast daily in the Tucson area (but not in Phoenix, where the trial was held), prevented him from receiving a fair trial. Ideally, juries should be selected from citizens who enter the venire free from prior exposure to the matter they are called to adjudicate. In reality, however, because we now must accept publicity  both legitimate and sensational  as an expected concomitant to crime, courts are more frequently presented with prospective jurors who have had varying degrees of previous contact, via the media, with criminal cases upon which they are called to serve. Yet, although this situation is troublesome, it does not necessarily equate with an inability to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial. Even in cases with substantial publicity like this one, the mere quantity of ... publicity does not alone deny a criminal defendant of a fair trial. Dunn v. Roberts, 768 F. Supp. 1442, 1446 (D.Kan. 1991), citing Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 303, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 2303, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977). Rather, we must determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the publicity attendant to defendant's trial was so pervasive that it caused the proceedings to be fundamentally unfair. See Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 2036, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). As the court in Dunn emphasized: The right to jury trial guarantees the criminal defendant a fair trial by a panel of impartial, `indifferent' jurors. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). The Constitution does not, however, guarantee a criminal defendant trial by a panel of jurors with no previous knowledge of the issues involved or even jurors with no previous opinions regarding the matter. Rather, [i]t is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. Id. at 723, 81 S.Ct. at 1643. Dunn, 768 F. Supp. at 1446. Viewed in this light, we reject defendant's publicity arguments, for, as we will explain, although we recognize that the horrific nature of the crime in this case engendered intense and prolonged media attention, we do not believe that defendant was ultimately denied the right to have his guilt or innocence determined by a fair and impartial jury. If defendant could demonstrate that media coverage was so extensive or outrageous that it permeated the proceedings or created a carnival-like atmosphere, we would presume prejudice without a particularized examination of the publicity's effect on the jury. LaGrand, 153 Ariz. at 34, 734 P.2d at 576. In determining whether the publicity in this case was in fact carnival-like, we look to the United States Supreme Court's rulings in Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963), Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965), and Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966). Prejudice was presumed in the circumstances under which the trials in Rideau, Estes, and Sheppard were held. In those cases the influence of the news media, either in the community at large or in the courtroom itself, pervaded the proceedings. In Rideau the defendant had confessed under police interrogation to the murder of which he stood convicted. A 20-minute film of his confession was broadcast three times by a television station in the community where the crime and the trial took place. In reversing, the Court did not examine the voir dire for evidence of actual prejudice because it considered the trial under review but a hollow formality  the real trial had occurred when tens of thousands of people, in a community of 150,000, had seen and heard the defendant admit his guilt before the cameras. The trial in Estes had been conducted in a circus atmosphere, due in large part to the intrusions of the press, which was allowed to sit within the bar of the court and to overrun it with television equipment. Similarly, Sheppard arose from a trial infected not only by a background of extremely inflammatory publicity but also by a courthouse given over to accommodate the public appetite for carnival. The proceedings in these cases were entirely lacking in the solemnity and sobriety to which a defendant is entitled in a system that subscribes to any notion of fairness and rejects the verdict of the mob. Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. at 798-99, 95 S.Ct. at 2035-36. Our review of the record in this case does not reflect anything comparable to the mockery of justice that occurred in Rideau, Estes, and Sheppard. Although the trial was televised in Tucson, the process of video broadcasting the proceedings did not diminish the solemnity and sobriety of the courtroom. Nor, in our opinion, did the presence of members of the press distract the jurors, witnesses, or parties from their responsibilities. If the media was a felt presence in the courtroom, it certainly was not a disruptive or overtly manipulative presence. Further, although the publicity surrounding the case may have at one point reached a fever pitch perhaps comparable to the media frenzies condemned in Rideau, Estes, and Sheppard, Pima County, rather than Maricopa County, received the brunt of that publicity and, at the time of trial, almost two years had elapsed since the height of the media coverage. Thus, we easily conclude that the publicity surrounding defendant's trial did not erupt into a circus, and we therefore do not presume that defendant was prejudiced by the media attention. This determination, however, does not dispose of the issue, for defendant is still entitled to demonstrate that the media's coverage of his case  be it printed or broadcast  compromised the ability of the particular jury that heard the case to adjudicate fairly. Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560, 575, 101 S.Ct. 802, 810, 66 L.Ed.2d 740 (1981); see also LaGrand, 153 Ariz. at 34, 734 P.2d at 576 (absent carnival-like atmosphere, defendant seeking a change of venue must prove that the pretrial publicity was prejudicial and will have the likely result of depriving him of a fair trial). In this regard, defendant argues first that, because of the pretrial publicity, it was not possible to find an impartial jury. He further asserts that several of the jurors actually selected for his case admitted to prior media exposure to his case. Concerning defendant's claim that an impartial jury could not possibly have been found in Phoenix, the state responds that, of the 136 persons in the venire, approximately only 10% were removed because of extensive media exposure to the case. The state admits that, because some excusals were made without comment, this number might actually have been greater than 10%. Nevertheless, we agree that the record does not portray a venire tainted by publicity. Our review of the record indicates that as much as 25% of the venire had no prior exposure to the case at all, and that most other venire members had only minimal exposure to the case and had not developed any bias from the media coverage. Thus, we conclude that publicity in the Phoenix area did not preclude the possibility of selecting an impartial jury and we accordingly hold that the trial court did not err in refusing defendant's request for an additional change of venue. See State v. Chaney, 141 Ariz. 295, 302, 686 P.2d 1265, 1272 (1984) (we will not reverse a trial court's denial of a motion for change of venue absent an abuse of discretion). Concerning defendant's charge that some of the jurors actually selected for his jury had been exposed to prejudicial pretrial publicity, our analysis of the voir dire reveals that approximately one half of the jurors in fact had some prior media exposure to the case. That exposure, however, as well as the jurors' memory regarding the publicity, was minimal. Further, none of the jurors gave even the slightest indication during voir dire that prior knowledge of the case would impede their ability to serve as objective jurors. We believe these facts sufficiently rebut defendant's claim that his jury was biased against him. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, even those persons whose exposure to pretrial publicity has led them to form opinions regarding a defendant are not necessarily incapable of serving as dispassionate jurors: It is not required ... that the jurors be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case. This is particularly true in criminal cases. To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722-23, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642-43, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). Our review of the record does not reveal, and defendant has not even attempted to demonstrate, that any of the 12 persons ultimately selected as jurors were unable to lay aside their prior impressions or opinions, if indeed they actually had any, and render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented in court. We are also not persuaded by defendant's argument that the jury, even if impartial when impaneled, was tainted by publicity during defendant's trial. Defendant asserts that rather than sequestering the jury only during deliberations, the trial court should have sequestered the jury throughout the entire trial to guard against the invasive effects of publicity. However, the decision to sequester a jury lies within the discretion of the trial court, and we will not disturb the court's decision on the matter absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Watkins, 126 Ariz. 293, 300, 614 P.2d 835, 842 (1980). Again, defendant has failed to demonstrate that the jury was exposed to publicity during the trial. The trial court gave the jury repeated admonitions, both oral and written, to avoid media coverage of the case. Defendant does not allege juror misconduct or disobedience to the court's admonitions, State v. Greenawalt, 128 Ariz. 150, 162, 624 P.2d 828, 840 (1981), and we have found none in our review of the record. Accordingly, we find no error. 16. Courtroom Decorum Defendant next claims that he was denied a fair trial by the disruptive actions of members of We The People, a citizen's action group organized, in part, because of community reaction to the kidnapping and murder in this case. Specifically, he alleges that on at least two occasions group members reacted audibly to the presentation of evidence. Consequently, he contends that the trial judge's failure to bar We The People members from the proceedings constitutes reversible error. Rule 9.3(b), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides that [a]ll proceedings shall be open to the public ... unless the court finds, upon application of the defendant, that an open proceeding presents a clear and present danger to the defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. More than one year before trial, defendant moved unsuccessfully to have We The People members barred from the courtroom. Initially, we note that this court has stated that, in the fair trial context, [c]lear and present danger means that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high.... Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Jennings, 107 Ariz. 557, 560, 490 P.2d 563, 566 (1971). Thus, exclusion of spectators is an extraordinary measure and should be done with caution. State v. Bush, 148 Ariz. 325, 330, 714 P.2d 818, 823 (1986). As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has noted, the better course [is] for the judge first to issue appropriate admonitions as to improper courtroom behavior and then to exclude spectators who fail[] to observe his request after holding an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Sherlock, 865 F.2d 1069, 1078 (9th Cir.1989). In this case, after defense counsel complained about a little laughter, titter, and some noise in response to his cross-examination of a witness, the trial judge chose promptly to admonish, outside the jury's presence, the entire group of spectators. He noted that he was unable to determine who was responsible, and he informed the spectators that he would ask them to leave if they made any further audible comments. This incident occurred on the second day of trial. The record reflects no further occurrences of inappropriate behavior by spectators, and no additional admonitions were made throughout the course of the trial. Defendant now argues that the trial court's warning was inadequate and that the continued presence of We The People members deprived him of a fair trial because the group members acted as a passive influence upon the jury. Defendant has not satisfied us that actual prejudice resulted from the group's actions at the trial, so we will find error only if the attendance of the group members was so inherently prejudicial as to pose an unacceptable threat to [defendant's] right to a fair trial.... Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 572, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 1347, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986) (emphasis added); see Norris v. Risley, 918 F.2d 828, 830 (9th Cir.1990). Inherent prejudice exists when `an unacceptable risk is presented of impermissible factors coming into play.' Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 570, 106 S.Ct. at 1346-47, quoting Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 505, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 1693, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976). We find that the presence of We The People members at the trial was not inherently prejudicial. The record suggests that the group members were neither identifiable nor distinct from other courtroom spectators. Thus, this case is distinguishable from those in which the reviewing court found error due to spectator influence upon the jury. See Norris, 918 F.2d at 829-30; Woods v. Dugger, 923 F.2d 1454, 1459 (11th Cir.1991). In Norris, several spectators at the trial wore Women Against Rape buttons. Norris, 918 F.2d at 830. The buttons not only made these individuals identifiable and distinct, but the reviewing court also found that they posed an unacceptable threat to the defendant's right to a fair trial because they successfully conveyed an implied message to the jury encouraging a determination of guilt. Norris, 918 F.2d at 830. Similarly, the Woods court found that the presence of uniformed officers at the defendant's trial for the murder of a correctional officer was prejudicial because it was intended to send a message to the jury that the officers wanted the defendant convicted and the death penalty imposed. Woods, 923 F.2d at 1459-60. Under the circumstances of that case, the court concluded that [t]he jury could not help but receive the message. Woods, 923 F.2d at 1460. In contrast, because the group members at defendant's trial were indistinguishable from the other spectators, it is difficult to imagine how they could have passively communicated an influential message to the jury. In other words, although we assume that the intentions of the We The People members were similar to those of the spectators in Norris and Woods  to demonstrate their desire to have a man whom they believed guilty punished for his crime  we do not believe that the members could have been successful in expressing that message to the jury simply by their presence among the spectators in the courtroom. In so concluding, we do not suggest that organizations of this nature cannot pose a serious threat to a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial, even when those organizations act only as a passive influence upon the jury. See, e.g., State v. Franklin, 174 W. Va. 469, 327 S.E.2d 449, 454-55 (1985) (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers members remained in court throughout the trial, sat directly in front of the jury, some cradled sleeping infants in their laps, and all prominently displayed their MADD buttons). We hold that the We The People members were not sufficiently noticeable, persuasive, or influential  passively or otherwise  to deprive defendant of a fair trial. We therefore find no error. 17. Evidentiary Rulings Defendant challenges approximately two dozen evidentiary rulings made by the trial court. In reviewing each claim, we recognize that the trial court has considerable discretion in determining the relevance and admissibility of evidence. Therefore, we will not disturb the trial court's ruling on any evidentiary issue absent a clear abuse of discretion. See State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 167, 800 P.2d 1260, 1275 (1990). We have reviewed each claim. Because our review has revealed no reversible error, however, we do not believe that each of the challenges merits individual discussion. Therefore, we address only the more colorable of defendant's arguments. [17] A. Defendant's Statements 1. Defendant's Story Defendant returned to De Anza Park late in the afternoon on the day the victim disappeared. James McDonald and Brian Hall, another of defendant's acquaintances, walked over to defendant's car and engaged him in conversation. Hall questioned defendant about what appeared to be blood on his hands, and defendant responded that he had stabbed a man in a drug dispute. Defendant repeated this story, with varying degrees of elaboration, to Thomas Parisien that evening and again to McDonald as defendant and McDonald traveled to Texas. Defendant later recanted his story in his television interview with Lupita Murrillo, claiming that he had fabricated it to appear tough to his friends. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court improperly allowed the jury to hear testimony concerning his story, claiming, among other things, that the evidence was hearsay and irrelevant. We disagree. Rule 801(d)(2)(A), Arizona Rules of Evidence, provides that [a] statement is not hearsay if [it] is offered against a party and is ... his own statement, in either his individual or a representative capacity.... Thus, defendant's statements were non-hearsay and, as such, were admissible against him if relevant. See 1 M. Udall, J. Livermore, P. Escher & G. McIlvain, Arizona Practice: Law of Evidence § 125, at 257 (3d ed. 1991). Defendant's claim that the story is unrelated to this crime, and therefore irrelevant, is equally unsupportable. Relevant evidence need only have  any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Rule 401, Arizona Rules of Evidence (emphasis added). Defendant's account of his activities on the afternoon the victim disappeared is highly relevant, especially when that account involves the stabbing of another person. That defendant would fabricate a story involving a stabbing to explain away the presence of blood on his hands certainly has the tendency to make more probable the fact that defendant committed the victim's murder. Defendant next challenges the manner in which evidence concerning his story was presented to the jury. Particularly, he argues that McDonald was improperly permitted to testify concerning Brian Hall's discussion with defendant on the afternoon of the kidnapping. Although both Hall and McDonald were present during the conversation at De Anza Park, apparently only Hall spoke with defendant. It was during this conversation that defendant first claimed to have stabbed someone. Hall was struck by lightning and killed 4 days after the meeting with defendant, and McDonald therefore related the incident to the jury at trial. The following exchange occurred during McDonald's testimony: McDONALD: When Brian [Hall] came around to the car, he mentioned that [defendant] had blood on his hands. DAVIS: What did [defendant] say? McDONALD: He said, he had a fight or hassle with some guy trying to rip him off, and that's how the blood got on his hands. McDonald was not asked whether he observed the blood on defendant's hands. We find no error in the admission of McDonald's testimony. `An incriminating statement of a third person which is admitted to be true by the accused, is admissible in evidence against him as his own statement by adoption.' State v. Thomas, 104 Ariz. 408, 411, 454 P.2d 153, 156 (1969), quoting People v. Henderson, 37 Ill.2d 489, 493, 229 N.E.2d 519, 521 (1967). Thus, when defendant failed to deny Hall's statement that he had blood on his hands, he adopted that statement as his own. As we have noted, admissions are non-hearsay. The Arizona Rules of Evidence therefore did not prohibit McDonald from testifying about Hall's question to defendant. Defendant nevertheless argues that the evidence was improperly admitted because James McDonald was an unreliable witness. He asserts that McDonald was a chronic alcohol and drug user and that his memory concerning the events of September 17, 1984, and the days leading up to defendant's arrest, were clouded by his substance abuse. At best, the record contains conflicting evidence concerning the degree of McDonald's impairment during this period. In addition, McDonald himself testified that he was not above lying if he believed it would benefit him. These facts, however, concern the weight to be given McDonald's testimony, not the admissibility of that testimony. See United States v. Haili, 443 F.2d 1295, 1299 (9th Cir.1971). Therefore, McDonald's ability accurately to recall the statements made by defendant was a question for the jury in this case. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's refusal to prohibit the testimony because of McDonald's alcohol and drug use. Defendant nevertheless complains that allowing McDonald to testify about the conversation between Brian Hall and defendant violated the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment. The limited reference to the conversation between Hall and defendant, however, concerned only defendant's adoptive admission that he indeed had blood on his hands. As such, Hall's question to defendant was non-hearsay, and it is well settled that the admission of non-hearsay raises no Confrontation Clause concerns. Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-82, 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985); see State v. Spinks, 156 Ariz. 355, 359, 752 P.2d 8, 12 (App. 1988). Further, even if sixth amendment confrontation principles were implicated by the testimony in this case, we would be hard pressed to conclude that defendant had been unfairly prejudiced by McDonald's testimony. Brian Hall's question to defendant concerning the blood contained no unique information, because Thomas Parisien, who was called as a defense witness, also testified that he had seen blood on defendant's hands and shirt. Thus, we find no error in the admission of testimony concerning defendant's story. 2. Defendant's Statement on the Telephone Defendant and McDonald experienced car trouble while traveling through Texas. McDonald testified that defendant, who was financially dependent on his parents, telephoned his mother in Los Angeles to get help to get it fixed. McDonald gave the following testimony concerning the incident: McDONALD: Frank called his mother in California. She called back and told him a place to get it fixed on a credit card with the telephone. DAVIS: Do you know what day of the week this was? McDONALD: No, I can't remember. DAVIS: Do you recall hearing any of the conversation that [defendant] had on the phone? McDONALD: Just the words he said when I was walking by the phone while he was talking. He said, Even if I did do it, you have to help me. That's all I heard of the conversation. DAVIS: Did you talk with [defendant] about that comment, later? McDONALD: Well, he talked to me. I didn't ask him about it. He said that they hadn't found the guy he stabbed there in Tucson. You know, that's about the only comment he made about it. He did  He said, also, they were trying to stick something on him about a little girl  something like that. That's all he said about it. Defendant argues that McDonald should have been prohibited from testifying about the conversation because it was irrelevant, immaterial and hearsay. He also asserts that, because McDonald only heard a portion of defendant's comments on the telephone and because he could not hear the other half of the conversation, the probative value of the evidence was far outweighed by its prejudicial effects. In support of his argument, defendant cites Benton Grain Co. v. Reger, 131 Kan. 735, 293 P. 955 (1930), in which the plaintiff in a civil case concerning the sale of wheat sought to admit the testimony of a witness who had overheard the plaintiff in a telephone conversation with the defendant. The witness was called to corroborate the plaintiff's version of the telephone conversation that he finally succeeded in buying the wheat. Benton, 131 Kan. at 737, 293 P. at 957. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the trial court had properly prohibited the witness from testifying because, among other things, her testimony would have been a conclusion by a witness on the very question the jury was called to determine. Benton, 131 Kan. at 737, 293 P. at 957. Defendant's reliance on Benton, and indeed his entire hearsay argument, is misplaced. The statement made by defendant during his telephone conversation with his mother was an admission and was therefore non-hearsay. The statement differs from the evidence at issue in Benton in the fundamental aspect that it was offered against the defendant, rather than as a corroborative effort to support his interpretation of the incident. See rule 801(d)(2), Arizona Rules of Evidence ([a] statement is not hearsay if [it] is offered against a party). This non-hearsay statement  Even if I did do it, you have to help me  was clearly relevant evidence. Further, although the prejudicial effects of the statement were substantial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the statement was nevertheless admissible. Defendant was afforded ample opportunity to impeach McDonald's testimony about the conversation, and the weight to be given the evidence was properly left to the jury. We find no error. B. Defendant's Letter and Statements to Ernest Bernsienne Defendant next objects to the admission of portions of a letter he wrote to Ernest Bernsienne, a man with whom he had corresponded while in prison and with whom he continued to communicate during his parole. He also objects to the admission of oral statements he made to Bernsienne concerning his sexual interest in children. The letter at issue was written in April 1982, more than two years before the kidnapping in this case. The jury was permitted to view the following redacted portions of the letter: Dearest Ernie: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Wow, I'm scared! Ya see, it's time for true confessions. What I mean is, there is a fact about me that I am ashamed of. I believe it is considered so wrong that I have kept this part of me hidden from you. That is, until now! Rather than saying I am attracted to people between the ages of 7 and 12, I feel a more complete explanation is necessary. Another fear is that I am still attracted to kids but can't handle another arrest. Similarly, the trial court permitted Bernsienne to testify that 3 or 4 months before the kidnapping in this case, defendant stated in a telephone conversation with him that he had considered picking up another child and that this time he would make sure the child wouldn't talk. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the redacted version of the letter and Bernsienne's testimony because the evidence improperly alluded to defendant's prior bad acts and because the references to defendant's sexual interest in young children constituted impermissible character evidence. He further argues that both the oral and written statements were made too long before the kidnapping in this case to have sufficient probative value. In contrast, the trial court ruled that the redacted sections of the letter and the oral statements were admissible as evidence of motive and intent and that, although the evidence indirectly mentioned defendant's prior arrest record, its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effects. See rule 404(b), Arizona Rules of Evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the redacted letter or defendant's statement to Bernsienne. We question, however, whether defendant was afforded all the protection due a criminal defendant against whom evidence of prior bad acts is admitted. The United States Supreme Court, in interpreting the Federal Rules of Evidence, has commented that 4 provisions protect a defendant from unfair prejudice resulting from evidence of prior bad acts: (1) rule 404(b)'s requirement that the evidence be admitted for a proper purpose; (2) the relevancy requirement of rule 402; (3) the trial court's assessment that the probative value of the similar acts evidence is substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice, see rule 403; and (4) rule 105's provision for an appropriate limiting instruction, if the party requests one. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691-92, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 1502, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988). These same 4 factors, as embodied in the Arizona Rules of Evidence, were available to defendant to provide assurance against unfair prejudice. Unfortunately, the record indicates that one of these safeguards was not employed. We concur with the trial court that both the letter and the oral statements, although reflective of defendant's prior bad acts, constitute appropriate evidence of his motive and intent to commit the crimes in this case. Together, defendant's statements about his sexual attraction to young children and his counterbalancing fears of further incarceration indicate the presence of motive to kidnap and murder the victim, thereby fulfilling his pedophilic desires while eliminating the victim who might report his actions. See State v. Bowen, 48 Wash. App. 187, 191, 738 P.2d 316, 319 (1987) (motive defined as an inducement, or that which leads or tempts the mind to indulge a criminal act). Thus, the evidence was admissible for a proper purpose under rule 404(b). In addition, defendant's statements were unquestionably relevant to the issues at trial, and we are not persuaded that the trial court abused its considerable discretion in determining that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Although the oral and written statements were made a significant amount of time before the crime in this case (3 to 4 months and 2 years, respectively), we have consistently held that the remoteness of such statements is a factor going to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. See State v. Jeffers, 135 Ariz. 404, 418, 661 P.2d 1105, 1119 (1983); State v. Moore, 111 Ariz. 355, 356, 529 P.2d 1172, 1173 (1974). We therefore conclude that the second and third Huddleston factors were satisfied. We do find error, however, in the trial court's failure to give the jury a limiting instruction concerning the evidence. Rule 105, Arizona Rules of Evidence, provides that when evidence is admissible for one purpose but not for another, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly. The evidence of defendant's sexual interest in children, and particularly the references to his prior bad acts involving children, were admitted for the limited purpose of demonstrating motive and intent. The statements were inadmissible to prove the character of [defendant] in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. Rule 404(b). The evidence, however, clearly had the potential of improperly suggesting to the jury that because the defendant is a person of criminal character, it is more probable that he committed the crime for which he is on trial. McCormick on Evidence § 190, at 557-58 (3d ed. 1984). A limiting instruction therefore would have been appropriate. The state concedes that no limiting instruction was given concerning the written and oral statements, but it asserts that the failure to give the instruction was not error because the defense did not request it. Indeed, the defense did not request a limiting instruction when the evidence was presented to the jury. Defendant does not challenge the state's assertion in his brief, but responds only that a limiting instruction was nevertheless necessary in this case. Initially, we note that the state is correct that failure to give a limiting instruction is not error if trial counsel does not make a proper request for the instruction. See, e.g., United States v. Record, 873 F.2d 1363, 1376 (10th Cir.1989), construing Huddleston, 485 U.S. 681, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988) (discussing identical provisions of Federal Rules of Evidence). Our independent review of the record, however, reveals that trial defense counsel did in fact request a limiting instruction concerning the evidence and that the proposed instruction, which was submitted with defendant's other proposed jury instructions at the end of all of the evidence, was denied by the trial court. The requested instruction read: The simple fact itself that the defendant was previously arrested one time prior to April 1982 should not be considered by you in arriving at your verdict. Admittedly, this is a poor example of a limiting instruction and should not have been given to the jury without modification. Given, however, that the April 1982 letter to Ernest Bernsienne presented to the jury contained the reference to defendant's previous arrest, we believe that the thrust of the proposed instruction was evident. Further, any doubt should have been dismissed when defense counsel orally informed the court of his purpose in submitting the instruction: I tried to draft, and I guess inartfully, language that would suggest that the jurors should not consider the arrest itself as evidence in the case to find the defendant guilty. They may use the fact that he was arrested, but not that he just was arrested and he's a bad person. That's the reason I have that one in there. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court erred in refusing the proposed limiting instruction (after modification). This error, however, does not warrant reversal. The test for determining harmless error is `whether there was reasonable probability ... that a verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.' State v. Williams, 133 Ariz. 220, 225, 650 P.2d 1202, 1207 (1982), quoting State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453, 622 P.2d 9, 12 (1980). Had the error not been committed in this case, the jury still would have been permitted to consider defendant's statements as evidence of motive and intent in arriving at [its] verdict. As such, the statements were tremendously incriminating. For that reason, we do not believe that a reasonable probability exists that the verdict would have been different had the jury been properly instructed. Accordingly, we hold that the error was harmless. C. Testimony of Paul Larmour Defendant argues that Paul Larmour, the state's accident reconstruction expert, was improperly allowed to testify that, to his eye, the color of the victim's bicycle and the pink smear on the bumper of defendant's car were a perfect paint match. According to defendant, this testimony violated the trial court's earlier ruling that, because the jury could view both the bike and the bumper, the question of whether the two paints matched was to be left for the jurors to determine. The trial court allowed the testimony, however, because it concluded that determining whether the paint smear visually matched the bicycle was a necessary aspect of Larmour's tests to determine if and where defendant's vehicle struck the bike. We believe that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this testimony. In addition, defense counsel's cross-examination sufficiently brought to the jury's attention the fact that Larmour was not a paint expert. We find no error. D. Testimony of Sam Hall We have already held that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial because of Sam Hall's emotional demeanor during his testimony. See supra Part 5(D)(2). Defendant further contends, however, that he was prejudiced by Hall's statements during direct examination that the defendant looked as if he was living out of his car, that as Hall viewed defendant something was telling [him] that something's not right here, and that defendant caused the hair on the back of [Hall's] head to rise up and [his] arm to get goose bumps and [his] adrenaline to start pumping just by sitting there, observing the gentleman in his car. The trial court allowed these statements, concluding that they were not improper opinion testimony, but rather were relevant comments illustrating the degree of Hall's attention when he saw defendant in the school parking lot. We concur in the trial court's interpretation of the statements and we accordingly find no error. E. Limitation on Cross-Examination of James Corby Defendant next asserts that he was prejudiced by the trial court's refusal to allow his trial counsel fully to cross-examine James Corby, the FBI agent who analyzed the paint transfers between defendant's car and the victim's bike. Particularly, he argues that his attorney was unfairly precluded from questioning Corby about areas in which Corby's test results varied from the results obtained in similar tests run by Tim Carlson, the state's first paint expert who died prior to trial. As noted, Carlson's testimony was not preserved before his death. See supra Part 8. Our review of the record, however, does not reveal that defense counsel ever actually objected to the court's prohibition against the use of Carlson's conclusions and opinions as an impeachment tool. A lengthy discussion ensued after the prosecution objected to the defense's attempt to use the Carlson material. The prosecution argued that the defense was improperly attempting to bring in Carlson's inadmissible opinions via Corby's cross-examination. The transcript of the discussion reveals considerable confusion among the trial judge, prosecutor, and defense counsel concerning which aspects of the Carlson materials the defense was attempting to use ( i.e., the charts, graphs, and other findings generated by the Carlson experiments as opposed to the actual conclusions Carlson reached from those materials). The trial court eventually concluded, based on its understanding of defense counsel's argument, that the defense was seeking only to introduce Carlson's graphs and charts to impeach Corby's testimony. Because the court believed that the materials were charts and items upon which Mr. Corby and Mr. Carlson and other of their colleagues would normally rely in the preparing of their conclusions and opinions, it determined that the items could be employed by the defense pursuant to rule 703 (If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.). In response to this ruling, defense counsel stated: I have nothing to add. That's what I was trying to argue yesterday, and I guess I misunderstood Your Honor's ruling. Thus, our reading of the record indicates that the defense received exactly what it requested. Assuming, however, that the defense in fact desired to use Carlson's opinions for impeachment purposes, the record does not reflect that, once the trial court's ruling was clear, defense counsel objected to the limitation placed upon his cross-examination of Corby, nor does it reflect that he made an offer of proof demonstrating the admissibility of Carlson's opinions. See rule 103(a)(2), Arizona Rules of Evidence; see also State v. Kaiser, 109 Ariz. 244, 246, 508 P.2d 74, 76 (1973) (As a general rule evidence cannot be reviewed on appeal in the absence of an offer of proof showing that the excluded evidence would be admissible and relevant.). We recognize that an offer of proof may not be necessary if the purpose and purport of the testimony expected to be elicited is obvious. Kaiser, 109 Ariz. at 246, 508 P.2d at 76, quoting Peterson v. Sundt, 67 Ariz. 312, 318, 195 P.2d 158, 162 (1948). We do not believe, however, that the purpose and purport of using the Carlson materials was obvious to the trial court in this case. Indeed, the only obvious aspects of the defense's attempt to use Carlson's material were defense counsel's miscommunication and the trial court's confusion as to the defense's intent. Accordingly, we find no basis for considering on appeal whether the defense was unfairly limited in cross-examining Corby. Finally, regardless of whether this issue was properly preserved at the trial level, we conclude that the ruling prohibiting the use of Carlson's opinions did not constitute an abuse of the trial court's discretion. [18] We therefore find no error, fundamental or otherwise. F. Admission of Defendant's Knives Defendant claims that the trial court improperly admitted two knives and some sandpaper found in his possession. He argues that because the state was unable to establish how the victim died and because he recanted his story about stabbing a man in a drug transaction, the knives were irrelevant and prejudicial. The state responds that the defense failed to make a timely objection to the admission of this evidence at trial and that defendant therefore is precluded from raising this issue on appeal. It also argues that, even if the issue is properly before this court, the trial court's ruling was correct because defendant's possession of the knives and his attempt to clean one of them with the sandpaper demonstrated both the availability of a murder weapon and a consciousness of guilt, which rendered defendant's culpability for the victim's death more probable and thereby provided a sufficient basis for admitting the items. We agree with the state that defendant's failure to make a timely objection to the admission of the knives and the sandpaper precludes defendant from raising this issue on appeal. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits ... evidence unless ... a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record.... Rule 103(a)(1), Arizona Rules of Evidence. The record reveals that the defense did not object to the evidence when it was offered and admitted, but rather moved for a mistrial two days later based on its admission. We conclude that the defense's motion was not timely as required by rule 103, and that defendant therefore waived his right to claim that the trial court erred in admitting the knives and the sandpaper. See also State v. McDaniel, 136 Ariz. 188, 196, 665 P.2d 70, 78 (1983) (It has long been the law in Arizona that failure to object to an offer of evidence is a waiver of any ground of complaint against its admission.). Similarly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the knives and sandpaper, for although defendant's argument is not totally without merit, we believe that the record substantiates the relevance of these items. Certainly, if the state had attempted to introduce the knives without presenting any other evidence linking them to the crime, they would have been inadmissible to prove that defendant murdered the victim, because, as defendant emphasizes, the state was unable to establish the cause of death. Defendant's argument, however, ignores significant evidence bearing on the relevance of these items. Specifically, the jury was informed that defendant returned to De Anza Park on the afternoon Mary disappeared, that Brian Hall questioned him about blood on his hands, and that defendant responded that he had stabbed someone during a drug transaction. Further, the jury learned that in addition to seeing blood on defendant's clothing that evening, Thomas Parisien claimed to have seen blood on a knife in defendant's possession and that the two men had discussed whether defendant should dispose of the knife. Finally, McDonald testified that defendant sandpapered the blade of a knife during the trip to Texas. In determining whether sufficient evidence connects an alleged weapon with the offense charged, the trial court must consider the totality of the evidence, and no one single factor is completely determinative. People v. Owens, 109 Ill. App.3d 1150, 1155, 65 Ill.Dec. 593, 596-97, 441 N.E.2d 908, 911-12 (App. 1982). Although the general rule is that items must be properly identified and shown to be connected with the crime, this is not an absolute rule. Where there is sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable inference that items were used by the accused in the commission of the crime charged, those items are admissible. Hayes v. State, 443 So.2d 1323, 1325 (Ala. Cr.App. 1983), citing 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 712 (1961); see also Commonwealth v. Phong, 19 Mass. App. 901, 901, 471 N.E.2d 383, 384 (1984) (although prosecution could not prove that defendant wore rubber gloves during the commission of crime, gloves were properly admitted because they were probative of an attempt to conceal fingerprints, which was probative of an intent to commit robbery, which, in turn, was probative of the defendant's actual robbery attempt). Under the totality of the circumstances surrounding the knives and sandpaper in this case, the trial court did not err in admitting these items. Given the testimony of McDonald and Parisien, the knives and sandpaper had obvious relevance that was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to defendant. G. Admission of Underpants Defendant next argues that the trial court incorrectly determined that the prejudicial effect of admitting a pair of girl's underpants found near the victim's remains did not outweigh the probative value of that evidence. See rule 403, Arizona Rules of Evidence. Our review of the record, however, indicates that defense counsel failed to object to the admission of the underpants at trial. [19] Absent fundamental error, error is usually considered to be waived on appeal unless it was objected to at trial. State v. Holder, 155 Ariz. 83, 85, 745 P.2d 141, 143 (1987), citing State v. Henley, 141 Ariz. 465, 687 P.2d 1220 (1984). As we have noted, the trial court has broad discretion to determine evidentiary matters, and we will not disturb the trial court's ruling absent an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., State v. Clabourne, 142 Ariz. 335, 343, 690 P.2d 54, 62 (1984). Given this deferential standard, [20] we are unpersuaded that admission of the underpants constituted error, much less fundamental error. Defendant emphasizes that Mary's mother was unable to identify positively the underpants as those she thought Mary had been wearing the day she disappeared. The lack of a positive identification, however, goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 169, 800 P.2d 1260, 1277 (1990), citing State v. Blazak, 114 Ariz. 199, 560 P.2d 54 (1977). In addition, Mary's mother did identify the underpants as being similar to a pair that Mary owned; she therefore was unable to rule out the possibility that the child had been wearing that pair the day she disappeared. Thus, the evidence had obvious potential probative value. Further, the state contends that the evidence also was admissible to demonstrate the thoroughness of the search of the area where the victim's remains were found and thereby to counter defense claims of inadequate or selective investigation by the Pima County Sheriff's Department. We agree. When balanced against the clear probative value of the evidence and the defense's ability to lessen its prejudicial impact by focusing on the lack of a positive identification, the possible prejudicial aspects of admitting the underpants do not appear overriding. Therefore, we believe that the trial court did not abuse its considerable discretion in allowing the evidence to reach the jury, and we accordingly find no error. H. Videotapes of Defendant in Custody Defendant next argues that he was denied a fair trial because the jury was permitted to view videotapes of television broadcasts showing him in police custody, handcuffed, and wearing jail attire. These videotapes were displayed to the jury, both during trial and during deliberations, as part of the out-of-court identifications made by several witnesses ( see supra FACTS, Part VI(A)) who recognized defendant when they saw him on television after his arrest. Defendant contends that allowing the jury to view the videotapes was tantamount to requiring him to attend his trial in jail garb and handcuffs. Defendant is correct that, except in rare circumstances, the constitution protects criminal defendants from being compelled to attend trial in jail clothing or handcuffs. See Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 504-05, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 1693, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976). His argument, however, adds a new, and somewhat disturbing, dimension to this principle: in determining whether a defendant has been afforded a fair trial, what is the impact of permitting the jury to view the defendant in videotaped portions of pretrial publicity clad in jail attire or handcuffs? The state responds to defendant's argument by emphasizing that the jury was aware that defendant had been arrested, so he could not have been prejudiced simply because the jurors saw him handcuffed and in a jail uniform. Relying on United States ex rel. Stahl v. Henderson, 472 F.2d 556, 557 (5th Cir.1973), the state argues that [n]o prejudice can result from seeing that which is already known. Henderson, however, concerned a defendant who was compelled to wear prison attire while on trial for murdering another inmate in prison. Extending Henderson to apply to all defendants who had been arrested would make a mockery of the right to a fair trial and would, in effect, swallow the rule prohibiting a defendant from being tried in prison clothing. Moreover, we believe the state's response misses the point, for the danger inherent in this type of situation is not that the jury will be made aware of some previously undisclosed fact, but that the visual impact of the improper picture of a restrained defendant might prejudice the jury against the defendant by portraying him as a bad or dangerous person. Lucas v. State, 791 S.W.2d 35, 56 (Tex.Cr. App. 1989); see Gates v. Zant, 863 F.2d 1492, 1501-02 (11th Cir.1989). In Lucas, the defendant argued that he was denied his right to a presumption of innocence, to a fair trial and to due process when the jury was allowed to view his videotaped confession, in which he appeared in handcuffs. Lucas, 791 S.W.2d at 54. In concluding that the jury should not have been permitted to view the videotape, the court discussed the ramifications of the trial judge's evidentiary ruling: [W]here the State chooses to introduce into evidence before the jury a videotaped statement made by an accused, and the statement is used during the first stage of trial, before a verdict as to guilt or innocence is reached by the jury, the State must observe the rule guarding the presumption [of innocence] as in other cases where the physical presence of the accused in view of the jury must be unfettered and unrestrained. To find otherwise would be to discount the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of strictly evidentiary concerns. The courts have recognized that the presence of physical restraints on an accused may tend to prejudice the jury against the accused and suggest that the trial judge, by permitting the use of such restraints, has thereby expressed the opinion that the accused is a dangerous person and is not to be trusted. While it is true appellant was not brought in before the jury during trial in restraints, the jury was allowed to see by videotaped means that which would not otherwise have been permitted. Although there is a distinction, it is one without difference if the broad presumption is to be supported. Therefore, unless the record reflects good and sufficient reason for such extraordinary measures, we must find error in the admission of the videotape. Lucas, 791 S.W.2d at 55 (citations omitted). The Lucas court determined, however, that the error was harmless because (1) the defendant had willingly participated in making the videotaped confession; (2) the focus of the videotape was on defendant's words, rather than on the fact that he was handcuffed; and (3) the prejudice resulting from the videotape was diminished by the admission of defendant's prior confession. The court concluded: Given the contextual atmosphere in which the jury was allowed to view the handcuffed appellant, one in which by wholly voluntary admission the facts and circumstances of the crime were discussed and re-enacted by the accused, the fact the jury was instructed as to the presumption of innocence, and the fact that irregardless [sic] of his repeated confessions, the presumption was underscored by his unfettered appearance in the courtroom, we can say beyond a reasonable doubt the encounter made no contribution to appellant's conviction. Lucas, 791 S.W.2d at 56. The Gates case addressed a similar incident in which the jury was permitted to view the defendant in handcuffs during his videotaped confession. Gates, 863 F.2d at 1501-02. In addressing the defendant's claim that he was unduly prejudiced by the viewing, the court reasoned that playing the videotape for the jury was more analogous to cases involving a brief or incidental viewing ... of the defendant in handcuffs than to cases in which the defendant was required to attend his trial or sentencing in handcuffs. Gates, 863 F.2d at 1501-02. The court therefore concluded that, as in cases involving incidental courthouse viewings of a defendant in handcuffs, the defendant in Gates was required to demonstrate that he was actually prejudiced by the jury's viewing of him on the videotape. Relying on the following factors, the Gates court found no actual prejudice: (1) although defense counsel had objected to the videotape, he did not expressly object to the presence of the handcuffs; (2) defense counsel did not ask for a limiting instruction or for a poll of the jury on the issue; (3) the videotape was made outside, rather than in the police station, so jurors likely would infer that handcuffing was simply standard procedure when a defendant is taken outside the jail; (4) viewing the defendant in handcuffs on a videotape presented less potential for prejudice than seeing him handcuffed in the courtroom; and (5) the defendant sat in the courtroom for several days without handcuffs. Gates, 863 F.2d at 1502. Applying the analyses of Lucas and Gates, we conclude that the videotape viewing in this case was not so prejudicial that it abrogated the probative value of the evidence. Several witnesses described for the jury the out-of-court identifications they made of defendant when they saw him on television. For the most part, these identifications occurred when the witnesses saw the brief television clips of defendant in police custody. The videotapes shown to the jury contained those television clips and demonstrated how and when the prior identifications had occurred. As such, the tapes were admissible. Further, although we are aware of the danger of discount[ing] the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of strictly evidentiary concerns, Lucas, 791 S.W.2d at 55, we do not believe that the use of the videotapes emasculated the presumption of innocence in this case. We have reviewed the exhibits and concur with defendant that the television footage does portray him in a prejudicial light. We question, however, the exact source of that prejudice. Defendant is seen in the videos in handcuffs and, in some of the footage, in identifiable jail attire. Primarily, the clips show defendant outside, apparently being transported from police vehicles to various jail facilities. As in Gates, we believe this fact mitigates the prejudicial impact of the video because the jury easily could conclude that common practice requires criminal defendants in custody to be handcuffed when they are outside the jail setting. In addition, the viewings of defendant are very brief and were balanced by the presence of the well-groomed, unfettered defendant throughout the lengthy trial. Indeed, perhaps the most damaging aspect of the videotape clips is the disparity they illustrate between the physical appearance of defendant at the time of his arrest and his appearance in the courtroom during trial. The jury easily could have been more influenced by the appearance of defendant than by the incidental facts that he was handcuffed and in jail garb. This aspect of the videotapes, however, did not warrant their exclusion, for the out-of-court identifications centered on how defendant appeared in September 1984  not on his considerably altered appearance at trial. Therefore, we believe that defendant was not impermissibly prejudiced by allowing the jury to see how he appeared at the time of the prior identifications. Finally, given the length of defendant's trial and the quantum and variety of the evidence presented by the state, we are unpersuaded that the brief viewings of defendant on the videotapes could have had any measurable impact on the jury or its verdict. We therefore hold that the display of the videotapes did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. 18. The Death Sentence Defendant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to death for Mary's murder. In support of his argument, defendant asserts that (1) Arizona's death penalty statute is unconstitutional; (2) the trial court erred in using defendant's 1975 conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct as an aggravating circumstance; (3) the trial court erred in finding no mitigating circumstances; (4) the trial court improperly received victim impact evidence; and (5) the death sentence under the circumstances of this case is disproportionately harsh. [21] A. Constitutionality of Arizona's Death Penalty Statute Defendant argues that Arizona's death penalty statute, A.R.S. § 13-703, is unconstitutional because it (1) denies defendant the right to a jury trial on the crime of capital murder (mitigating circumstances); (2) improperly places the burden of proof on defendant to prove mitigating circumstances; and (3) presumes the death penalty to be the appropriate sentence. We recently rejected these very arguments. See State v. Brewer, 170 Ariz. 486, 497, 826 P.2d 783, 794 (1991), citing Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, ___, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 3054-56, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990) (United States Supreme Court rejected arguments identical to defendant's and upheld Arizona's death penalty statute as constitutional), aff'g State v. Walton, 159 Ariz. 571, 769 P.2d 1017 (1989). Consistent with Brewer, we reject defendant's arguments and reaffirm Arizona's death penalty statute as constitutional. B. Defendant's 1975 Conviction for Lewd and Lascivious Conduct as an Aggravating Circumstance Defendant claims that his 1975 conviction for engaging in lewd and lascivious conduct in June 1974 cannot be used as an aggravating circumstance for imposing the death penalty. Section 13-703(E) precludes the imposition of the death penalty unless the first degree murder is accompanied by at least one of 10 aggravating circumstances enumerated in A.R.S. § 13-703(F). See A.R.S. § 13-703(E); State v. Rockwell, 161 Ariz. 5, 14, 775 P.2d 1069, 1078 (1989). The trial court found that Mary's murder was accompanied by the following aggravating circumstance enumerated in A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(1): The defendant has been convicted of another offense in the United States for which under Arizona law a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable. After the jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder, the court conducted an aggravation/mitigation hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-703(B). Following the hearing, the trial judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had been convicted on February 3, 1975, under California Penal Code § 288, of engaging in lewd and lascivious conduct on or about June 18, 1974. Arizona's 1974 equivalent to § 288, A.R.S. § 13-652, provided for a sentence of not less than five years nor more than life.... A.R.S. § 13-652, amended by Laws 1965, Ch. 20, § 2, eff. March 25, 1965, renumbered § 13-1412 and amended by Laws 1977, Ch. 142, § 68, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. The state thus argues that defendant's 1975 conviction for engaging in lewd and lascivious conduct in 1974 establishes a § 13-703(F)(1) aggravating circumstance. Defendant, on the other hand, argues that his 1975 conviction cannot be used to establish a § 13-703(F)(1) aggravating circumstance because in 1987, when defendant was sentenced for Mary's murder, neither a sentence of life imprisonment nor death was imposable under § 13-652's successor statute, § 13-1412. [22] In other words, defendant invites this court to look not at the sentence that was imposable at the time defendant violated § 288, but rather at the sentence that would have been imposable at the time defendant was sentenced for Mary's murder. This court declined an identical invitation in State v. Tittle, 147 Ariz. 339, 710 P.2d 449 (1985). In Tittle, the defendant argued that his 1965 robbery conviction could not be used as a § 13-703(F)(1) aggravating circumstance because, although a sentence of life imprisonment was imposable under Arizona's 1965 robbery statute, at the time the defendant was sentenced for murder, a sentence of only 2 to 5 years' imprisonment was imposable. In rejecting the defendant's argument, we stated: [Section 13-703(F)(1)] does not read that the offense must be punishable by life imprisonment or death under current Arizona law. The words was imposable clearly require the sentencing court to look at the [sentence] imposable at the time a defendant was sentenced for the original conviction and not at the time of sentencing for the subsequent murder. This interpretation is consistent with the rule of construction that statutes will be construed according to the fair meaning of their terms and to effect the objects of the penal code. Tittle, 147 Ariz. at 343, 710 P.2d at 453; A.R.S. § 1-211(C). As in Tittle, we decline defendant's invitation. In addition, we take this opportunity to clarify Tittle's rather imprecise language. The language used by this court  The words `was imposable' clearly require the sentencing court to look at the [sentence] imposable at the time a defendant was sentenced for the original conviction   does not, we believe, reflect what the Tittle court actually looked at. In Tittle, the trial court had the choice of looking at the sentence imposable at the time the defendant committed the robbery, or the sentence imposable at the time the defendant was being sentenced for murder. The sentence imposable at the time the defendant was sentenced for the robbery was neither discussed nor relevant to the Tittle court's decision. Likewise, we consider irrelevant the sentence imposable at the time defendant was sentenced for lewd and lascivious conduct (whether that date be 1975 or 1978), and hold that, in determining whether a prior conviction establishes an aggravating circumstance under A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(1), the trial court should look at the sentence that was imposable at the time the prior offense was committed. See A.R.S. § 1-246 ([O]ffender[s] shall be punished under the law in force when the offense was committed. ) (emphasis added). Accordingly, because a sentence of life imprisonment was imposable at the time defendant engaged in lewd and lascivious conduct (June 1974), we affirm the trial court's finding that the aggravating circumstance of § 13-703(F)(1) is established by defendant's 1975 conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct. C. The Trial Court's Finding of No Mitigating Circumstances Under A.R.S. § 13-703(G) Defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. Section 13-703(E) states that, [i]n determining whether to impose a sentence of death ..., the court shall take into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances included in subsections F and G ... and shall impose a sentence of death if the court finds one or more of the aggravating circumstances enumerated in subsection F... and that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. In taking into account the mitigating circumstances, the sentencing court must consider any aspect of the defendant's character or record and any circumstance of the offense relevant to determining whether a sentence less than death might be appropriate, State v. McCall, 139 Ariz. 147, 162, 677 P.2d 920, 935 (1983), but it is within the discretion of the trial judge how much weight should be given to the proffered mitigating factors. State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 551, 804 P.2d 72, 84 (1990), citing Jeffers v. Ricketts, 627 F. Supp. 1334, 1357 (D.Ariz. 1986), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 832 F.2d 476 (9th Cir.1987), rev'd, 497 U.S. 764, 110 S.Ct. 3092, 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990). In addition, the burden is on the defendant to prove the existence of mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence. Fierro, 166 Ariz. at 551, 804 P.2d at 84. Here, the trial court found no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. Defendant maintains that the trial court erred in failing to find as mitigating circumstances any of the following: (1) the trial court's felony murder instruction and the trial judge's failure to make specific Enmund/McDaniel findings in his special verdict; (2) defendant's heavy drug use; (3) defendant's demeanor during trial; (4) defendant's parents' support; (5) the cause of Mary's death was not established; (6) defendant's age; (7) lingering doubt of guilt; (8) defendant's cooperation at the time of his arrest; (9) defendant's sympathy for Mary's family; (10) defendant's intelligence quotient (I.Q.); (11) defendant's concern for his parents; (12) defendant's lack of a violent prior record; (13) defendant's not causing his prior felonies; and (14) defendant's adjustment to incarceration and adoption of new goals. On appeal, we must independently review the record to determine the absence or existence of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances.... State v. Gillies (Gillies I), 135 Ariz. 500, 511, 662 P.2d 1007, 1018 (1983). We address each of defendant's proffered mitigating circumstances in turn. 1. The Trial Court's Felony Murder Instruction Defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to find its felony murder instruction as a mitigating circumstance. Similarly, defendant argues that his death sentence must be reversed because he was convicted under a felony murder theory and the trial judge failed to make specific findings as purportedly required by Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982), and State v. McDaniel, 136 Ariz. 188, 665 P.2d 70 (1983). Neither of these arguments, however, is persuasive. a. The Felony Murder Instruction Defendant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to find the giving of the felony murder instruction as a mitigating circumstance. We reject this argument. We have held that [t]he giving of a felony-murder instruction is a mitigating circumstance only where there is some doubt as to defendant's specific intent to kill the victim.  Gillies I, 135 Ariz. at 513, 662 P.2d at 1020 (emphasis added), citing State v. Schad, 129 Ariz. 557, 573-74, 633 P.2d 366, 382-83 (1981). Likewise, we have held that the giving of a felony murder instruction is not a relevant circumstance when the defendant is not being held accountable for the acts of an accomplice, and no facts in the record indicate that the defendant had any intent other than to kill the victim. State v. Roscoe, 145 Ariz. 212, 227, 700 P.2d 1312, 1327 (1984); see also State v. Zaragoza, 135 Ariz. 63, 70, 659 P.2d 22, 29 (1983) (affirming death sentence of defendant who was convicted of first degree felony murder and who intended to kill or knew with substantial certainty that his conduct would cause death); Schad, 129 Ariz. at 573-74, 633 P.2d at 382-83 (same). Applying Gillies I, Roscoe, Zaragoza, and Schad to the facts of this case, we affirm the trial court's finding that [w]hile the giving of the felony murder instruction might under some circumstance be a mitigating factor, the Court finds it no mitigation here where the Defendant was the only participant in this offense, and no facts in the record indicate that defendant had any intent other than to kill the victim. b. The Trial Judge's Failure to Make Specific Enmund/McDaniel Findings The United States Supreme Court in Enmund held that the eighth amendment precludes the imposition of the death penalty unless the defendant killed, attempted to kill, intended that a killing take place, or contemplated the use of lethal force. Enmund, 458 U.S. at 801, 102 S.Ct. at 3378-79. The Supreme Court itself, however, later noted that Enmund does not extend to protect a defendant who is convicted under a felony murder theory and who, acting alone, killed: In Enmund v. Florida , ... we ruled that the Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of the death penalty on one ... who aids and abets a felony in the course of which a murder is committed by others but who does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force will be employed. Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U.S. 376, 378, 106 S.Ct. 689, 693, 88 L.Ed.2d 704 (1986) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Thus, no constitutional barrier exists to imposing the death penalty on a defendant who is convicted under a felony murder theory and who, acting alone, actually killed. Although no constitutional barrier exists to imposing the death penalty on defendant, he argues that his death sentence must be reversed because McDaniel requires the trial judge to make the Enmund finding, and the state concedes that the trial judge made no such finding in this case. We disagree. In McDaniel, McDaniel, acting with others, beat, robbed, hog-tied, and then poured liquor down the throat of a man who had come to McDaniel's apartment looking for a prostitute. After being rendered helpless, the man was wrapped in a blanket and locked in the trunk of his car. He was found two days later; he had died of heat exhaustion or suffocation in the extreme August heat. At McDaniel's trial, the court instructed the jury on both premeditated murder and felony murder. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty, and McDaniel was sentenced to death. McDaniel appealed. On appeal, McDaniel argued that under Enmund his death sentence must be reversed because it was uncertain whether the jury's guilty verdict was based on premeditated murder or on felony murder, and, if it was based on felony murder, the jury did not make a finding that McDaniel killed, attempted to kill or intended to kill. After acknowledging that the basis of the jury's verdict was uncertain, we stated, [I]n first degree murder cases where the jury is instructed on felony murder as well as premeditated murder, a general verdict finding the defendant guilty of first degree murder does not establish whether the defendant had in fact killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill. A finding of felony murder, unlike premeditated murder, does not require that the defendant have the culpability required by Enmund. ... In order to comply with Enmund, therefore, we believe that in future cases where the jury might have found the defendant guilty of first degree murder based on a felony-murder theory, the trial judge must determine beyond a reasonable doubt prior to imposing a sentence of death that the defendant killed, attempted to kill or intended to kill. McDaniel, 136 Ariz. at 199, 665 P.2d at 81 (emphasis added). Defendant would have us disregard the emphasized language in the phrase in first degree murder cases where the jury is instructed on felony murder as well as premeditated murder,  and focus exclusively on the emphasized language in the phrase the trial judge must determine beyond a reasonable doubt prior to imposing a sentence of death that the defendant killed, attempted to kill or intended to kill. We decline to do so. The jury in McDaniel was instructed on felony murder as well as premeditated murder,  and did not make a finding that McDaniel killed, attempted to kill or intended to kill. In this case, on the other hand, the jury was instructed on felony murder exclusively. Thus, the rule announced in McDaniel, by its own language, does not apply in this case. More importantly, the majority believes that the jury in this case did make a finding that defendant killed. The trial court instructed the jury as follows: The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every material element of the charge of murder. The material elements include: 1. The fact of death, and 2. The fact that the death was caused by the criminal agency of the defendant. A person commits first degree murder under the felony murder rule if such person commits kidnapping, and in the course of and in furtherance of such offense or immediate flight from such offense, such person causes the death of any person. With respect to the felony murder rule, insofar as it provides a basis for a charge of first degree murder, it is not necessary that the state prove that the defendant intended to kill; it is only necessary that the State prove that the death occurred in a course of and in furtherance of such offense. The burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only that the offense was committed as alleged, but that also the defendant is the person who committed it. (Emphasis added.) Based on these instructions, the jury found defendant guilty of first degree felony murder. The majority believes that implicit in the jury's verdict is the finding that defendant in fact killed Mary, and, of course, the jury may make the Enmund finding. Cabana, 474 U.S. at 386, 106 S.Ct. at 697 (If a person sentenced to death in fact killed, ... the Eighth Amendment itself is not violated by his or her execution regardless of who makes the determination of the requisite culpability. ...) (emphasis added). Accordingly, we hold that the trial judge's failure to make an Enmund finding is not error. [23] 2. Defendant's Heavy Drug Use Defendant contends that the trial court should have found his heavy drug use to be a mitigating circumstance. We reject this contention. While we recognize that [v]oluntary intoxication is a mitigating circumstance if [a] defendant's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct was significantly impaired ... at the time of the crime, State v. Gillies (Gillies I), 135 Ariz. 500, 515, 662 P.2d 1007, 1022 (1983); see also A.R.S. § 13-703(G)(1), the burden of proving mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence is on the defendant, see State v. Fulminante, 161 Ariz. 237, 258, 778 P.2d 602, 623 (1988), aff'd, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991), and we agree with the trial court that the Defendant has failed to prove th[is] contention. At the aggravation/mitigation hearing, defense counsel called two witnesses, John W. Atwood, defendant's father, and defendant. Mr. Atwood testified that when defendant, then age 13, attended a privately-owned school, another student introduced drugs to him. Mr. Atwood further testified that, to his knowledge, defendant's drug scene continued from that time until defendant's September 20, 1984 arrest in connection with Mary's disappearance, some 15 years later. Because defendant was in Tucson and Mr. Atwood was in California on September 17, 1984, Mr. Atwood could not, of course, testify as to whether defendant had taken, or was suffering from the effect of, any drugs on the date defendant kidnapped and killed the victim. Similarly, defendant testified that he started taking drugs at age 13 and continued to take drugs until his September 20, 1984 arrest. In addition, defendant testified that on or about September 17, 1984, he was using marijuana, cocaine, codeine, and demerol. Defendant testified that these drugs would change [his] attitude, and would distort and impair [his] ability to think clearly in reality. Not being able to think clearly in reality, however, is not coextensive with not having the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of one's conduct. Thus, defendant appears to have provided the trial court with no evidence that his capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of kidnapping and killing Mary was significantly impaired on September 17, 1984. Moreover, stacked against the testimony offered in mitigation by defendant is the evidence that defendant did know that his September 17, 1984 conduct was wrongful. At trial, three witnesses, James McDonald, Gary Cisco, and Thomas Parisien, all testified that defendant claimed to have stabbed a man in a drug transaction on September 17, 1984. McDonald and Parisien further testified that defendant discussed with them whether he should dispose of his bloody clothes. They also testified that defendant said that, after killing the man, he took the body to the desert near the mountains. McDonald also testified that he saw defendant sandpapering his knife. This evidence indicates that defendant was trying to hide evidence of his conduct on September 17, 1984, which, in turn, indicates that defendant knew that his conduct was wrongful. We agree with the trial court that defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct was significantly impaired on September 17, 1984. 3. Defendant's Demeanor During Trial Defendant would have this court believe that the trial court erred in refusing to find his respectful, proper, and controlled trial demeanor to be a mitigating circumstance. We are unpersuaded. We concede that nothing in the record indicates that defendant was anything but respectful, proper, and controlled in the presence of the jury that was to determine his guilt or innocence, and in the presence of the judge, who was to determine whether he would die or live out his life in prison. We recognize this not as a mitigating circumstance, however, but as an appropriately self-serving attitude directed toward obtaining either an acquittal or a less harsh sentence. In addition, there is evidence that outside the presence of the jury and the judge, defendant was, to say the least, not respectful, proper, or controlled. For example, at the aggravation/mitigation hearing, defendant admitted that he had been written up for breaking jail rules and that some of those write-ups concerned violent activity. Obviously, breaking jail rules while engaging in violent activity is not respectful, proper, or controlled. In addition to breaking jail rules, defendant threatened to kill a deputy sheriff for trying to remove some extra clothes hanging in the holding area to which defendant was assigned during trial. On direct examination of the deputy, the following dialogue took place: Q. [By the Prosecutor] [D]uring March was there a particular incident with [defendant] involving a threat of violence upon yourself? A. [By Deputy Sheriff Nelson] Yes, sir, on March 10th. Q. Would you repeat what happened on that day concerning yourself, [defendant] and one of your fellow deputies? A.... In the holding area I advised [defendant] that we would have to reduce the suits, that he would have his choice as to what he wanted taken out, but we would have to reduce because it was a security problem at that time. I explained the security problem, being that we couldn't see in.... [Defendant] said, You're going to have to talk to my lawyer, in an abrupt manner. I says, This is a security problem and I'm not going to talk to your attorney. [Defendant] paced back and forth about twice and then turned around in a very explosive attitude, told me that  well, he used very graphic language. Q. You can repeat that language.... [A.] You don't know who you're talking with. I'll have you  I can have you wasted. I'll take your gun away from you and blow your shit away. These are only some of the comments. Based on the record before us, we find that the trial court did not err in refusing to find defendant's trial demeanor to be a mitigating circumstance sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. 4. Defendant's Parents' Support Defendant argues that the trial court erred in not finding as a mitigating circumstance the fact that his father and mother supported him during his trial. The record does in fact indicate that defendant's parents went to great lengths to reach out to their son and to support him during his trial. However, we believe that the trial court, after considering defendant's parents' willingness to reach out to defendant and defendant's willingness to accept that reach, reasonably could have concluded that defendant's parents' support did not constitute a mitigating circumstance sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. 5. The Cause of the Victim's Death Was Not Established Defendant claims that because the cause of Mary's death was not established, he should not be sentenced to death. This claim is meritless. The jury found that defendant caused Mary's death. Although the cause of a victim's death is relevant in determining the existence of aggravating circumstances, we find it irrelevant for purposes of determining mitigating circumstances. See People v. Manson, 71 Cal. App.3d 1, 42, 139 Cal. Rptr. 275, 298 (1977) (The fact that a murderer may successfully dispose of the body of the victim does not entitle him to an acquittal. That is one form of success for which society has no reward.). The trial court did not err in refusing to find as a mitigating circumstance the fact that the cause of Mary's death was not established. 6. Defendant's Age Defendant urges this court to find that the trial court erred in failing to find his age, 28 years at the time he killed the victim, to be a mitigating circumstance. We refuse to do so. Initially, we note that 28 is not a young or immature age. We have found age not to be a mitigating circumstance in cases involving much younger defendants. See, e.g., State v. Brewer, 170 Ariz. 486, 506, 826 P.2d 783, 803 (1991) (age 22 not a mitigating factor); State v. Walton, 159 Ariz. 571, 589, 769 P.2d 1017, 1035 (1989) (age 20 not a mitigating factor), aff'd, 497 U.S. 639, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990); State v. Gerlaugh, 144 Ariz. 449, 460-61, 698 P.2d 694, 705-06 (1985) (age 19 not a mitigating factor); State v. Clabourne, 142 Ariz. 335, 348, 690 P.2d 54, 67 (1984) (age 20 not a mitigating factor); State v. Gillies (Gillies I), 135 Ariz. 500, 513, 662 P.2d 1007, 1020 (1983) (age 20 not a mitigating factor). In addition to chronological age, however, we also look at such factors as a defendant's intelligence and past experience to determine whether age is a mitigating circumstance. Walton, 159 Ariz. at 589, 769 P.2d at 1035, citing Gillies I, 135 Ariz. at 513, 662 P.2d at 1020. In this case, both the defendant's intelligence and his past experience indicate that his age should not be considered as a mitigating circumstance. At the aggravation/mitigation hearing, defendant's father stated that defendant's I.Q. was well above average, ... around 128, 130. In addition, defendant had obtained the equivalent of a high school diploma. Moreover, defendant had experienced a great deal in his 28 years. He had been convicted of two sex-related felonies involving children and had spent approximately 7 years in mental hospitals and prison. We believe that, given defendant's well-above-average I.Q. and his extensive criminal experience, the trial court properly found that defendant's age is not a mitigating factor. 7. Lingering Doubt of Guilt Defendant contends that lingering doubt exists as to his guilt and that the trial court erred in refusing to find this as a mitigating circumstance. This contention has no merit. Although the jury convicted defendant based on circumstantial evidence and, perhaps in part, based on the testimony of alcohol abusers and drug users, we have found that the jury's verdict finding defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is supported by sufficient evidence. Accordingly, under these facts, the trial court properly refused to find lingering doubt to be a mitigating circumstance sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. See State v. Schad, 129 Ariz. 557, 573-74, 633 P.2d 366, 382-83 (1981) (We have already determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict; thus, there is no merit in defendant's contention that there was doubt of guilt.). 8. Defendant's Cooperation at the Time of His Arrest Defendant argues that the trial court erred in not finding his post-arrest cooperation to be a mitigating circumstance. Although the record indicates that defendant voluntarily gave the FBI a statement, hair samples, fingernail scrapings, and permission to search his car, we believe that the trial judge correctly found that, in this case, defendant's modest cooperation, considered individually or in combination with other proffered mitigating circumstances, was not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. See State v. Bishop, 127 Ariz. 531, 534-35, 622 P.2d 478, 481-82 (1980) (defendant's cooperation with police not a mitigating circumstance sufficiently substantial to call for leniency). 9. Defendant's Sympathy for the Victim's Family Defendant believes that the trial court erred in not finding his sympathy for Mary's family to be a mitigating circumstance. We disagree. While sympathy or remorse may be considered a mitigating factor, see State v. Tittle, 147 Ariz. 339, 344, 710 P.2d 449, 454 (1985), we do not believe defendant's sympathy, on balance, is sufficient to call for leniency given the seriousness of his crimes. 10. Defendant's I.Q. Defendant asserts that the trial court should have found his intelligence to be a mitigating circumstance. Defendant's father testified that defendant's I.Q. was well above average, ... around 128, 130. Based on his well-above-average intelligence, defendant concludes that he can be rehabilitated. Defendant's history, however, belies this conclusion. There is no evidence that defendant's intelligence was ever anything but well above average. Notwithstanding this natural gift, defendant has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not interested in, nor has he benefited from, rehabilitation. Defendant received parole for his 1981 kidnapping conviction in 1984. That parole required therapy, among other things. The record indicates that defendant repeatedly failed to take advantage of available therapy. In fact, defendant admitted that after 3 years of treatment at Atascadero, he refused to cooperate with Atascadero officials. In addition, when asked at the aggravation/mitigation hearing if he could recite to the court any therapy program, parole program, probation program, or counseling program that he had successfully completed, defendant replied, Without going into my juvenile record, I don't think I can. In sum, we recognize that the purposes of the criminal justice system include both rehabilitation, as raised by defendant's argument here, and punishment. A.R.S. § 13-101(6) (It is declared that the public policy of this state and the general purposes of the provisions of [Arizona's Criminal Code] are: ... To impose just and deserved punishment on those whose conduct threatens the public peace.). We believe that the trial court may have considered both of these purposes and properly concluded that, in this case, defendant's interest in rehabilitation was insufficient to call for leniency when compared to the harm caused by his conduct and his continued threat to the public peace. 11. Defendant's Concern for His Parents Defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to find as a mitigating circumstance the fact that defendant is concerned about his parents and that he tried to reduce the stress on his family throughout this ordeal. Although it may be true that defendant showed concern for his parents during his incarceration and trial, the record does not show that defendant expressed a similar concern at any other time since he was 13 years old. And on the numerous occasions that defendant's parents did reach out to him, defendant rejected their offers of help. We believe that the trial court reasonably could have determined that defendant's concern for his parents, even if sincere, was not a mitigating circumstance sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. 12. Defendant's Lack of a Violent Prior Record Defendant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to death because his two prior convictions were not for violent crimes. We believe defendant incorrectly characterized his prior convictions as non-violent. Although the trial court is forbidden on due process grounds from considering the facts underlying a defendant's prior convictions for purposes of establishing a § 13-703(F)(2) aggravating circumstance, see Gillies I, 135 Ariz. at 511, 662 P.2d at 1018, this court cannot ignore such facts if the defendant asserts on appeal that the non-violent nature of his prior convictions constitutes a mitigating circumstance. Therefore, in order to determine the merit of defendant's argument, we now consider the facts underlying his 1981 kidnapping conviction. [24] Preliminarily, we note that although attorneys should represent their clients to the best of their ability, defendant's appellate counsel's recitation of the facts underlying defendant's 1981 kidnapping conviction is grossly over-simplified. Appellate counsel, in defendant's opening brief, describes those facts as follows: [Defendant] asked the boy directions. [Defendant] give [sic] him a ride on his motorcycle. Both orally copulated the other. [Defendant] then returned the boy to where he met him. Appellate counsel does not cite to the record or any other source for these assertions. The actual transcript of the preliminary hearing for the 1981 kidnapping, [25] however, includes the following dialogue between the California prosecuting attorney and the 8-year-old victim: Q. [By the prosecutor] Did something happen to you while you were riding home? A. [By the victim] Yes. .... Q. What happened? A. [Defendant] stopped me and he said, Where is Sunset? Q. What did you do? Did you answer him? A. I said, I don't know. If you follow me, you can ask my mom and dad. .... Q. What did [defendant] do when you told him he could come to your mom and find out where it is? A. He said, Here, I will give you a ride. And I said, No. I'll ride home on my bike. Follow me. Q. Then what happened? A. And I was halfway on my bike and he threw my bike down and pulled me on the motorcycle. This dialogue clearly shows that defendant did more than give [the victim] a ride on his motorcycle. Further, appellate counsel's description of the sex offense, both orally copulated the other, does not reflect reality. The record reflects that, after kidnapping the victim, defendant forced the boy to fellate him, holding his head down so roughly that the boy received visible scratches on his neck, and, when the boy threatened to scream, defendant said, If you scream, I will kill you. We believe the facts underlying defendant's 1981 conviction for kidnapping render meritless defendant's argument that he lacks a violent prior record. We find no error. 13. Defendant's Not Causing His Prior Felonies Defendant argues that his prior felonies were the result of: (1) [his] drug history and abuse; (2) his [being] molest[ed] as a minor; and (3) his relationship with his parents, and that the trial court erred in not finding these facts to be mitigating circumstances. We have already found that the trial court did not err in refusing to find as mitigating circumstances defendant's drug use and the support and concern exchanged between defendant and his parents. Thus, we do not consider these circumstances here. Further, we do not believe that defendant's being molested as a minor justifies, excuses, or otherwise mitigates his crimes here. The remedy for one who has been molested is not to molest others and ask to be excused, but rather to submit to therapy, which, as noted above, defendant has repeatedly refused to do. We find no error.