Opinion ID: 1036031
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Especially cruel” jury instruction

Text: ¶38 Benson next argues that the trial court’s jury instruction on the “especially cruel” aggravator was unconstitutionally vague, both facially and as applied, because it failed to provide a means for determining whether the cruelty inflicted on the victims was “especially cruel” or merely the sort that accompanies all strangulations. We review jury instructions de novo. State v. Tucker (Tucker II), 215 Ariz. 298, 310 ¶ 27, 160 P.3d 177, 189 (2007). ¶39 This Court has held that the especially cruel aggravator — while facially vague — may be remedied with an instruction requiring the jury to find “the victim was conscious during the mental anguish or physical pain and also . . . the defendant knew or should have known that the victim would suffer.” Id. at 310 ¶ 28, 310-11 ¶ 31, 160 P.3d at 189-90. The court gave that instruction here, and further narrowing was not required.