Opinion ID: 2649691
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Requested Narrowing Instruction

Text: ¶90 Forde argues that the trial court violated Eighth Amendment proportionality and narrowing principles by refusing to instruct the jury as follows: “Every felony that occurs as part of a felony murder brings with it danger and risk of serious injury or death to potential victims of the listed felony. To find ‘reckless indifference’ to human life, something more is required.” We review for an abuse of discretion. State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 309, 896 P.2d 830, 849 (1995). 27 STATE V. FORDE Opinion of the Court ¶91 Although a party is entitled to an instruction on all theories reasonably supported by the evidence, “when a jury is properly instructed on the applicable law, the trial court is not required to provide additional instructions that do nothing more than reiterate or enlarge the instructions in defendant’s language.” Id. Here, the court instructed that “something more” than commission of a felony is required to constitute “reckless indifference” by telling the jury that “a finding of reckless indifference cannot be based solely upon a finding that the defendant . . . merely participated in a crime resulting in a homicide.” Because Forde’s proposed instruction did nothing more than reiterate the given instruction, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not giving the instruction.