Not only is it clear that the jury does not buy her version of the killing, but they are fixating on many of the aggrevating factors that weigh in favor of DP. This is from the jury instructions for the State of AZ in capital cases where DP is appropriate:
Relished the Murder
The defendant “relished the murder” if the defendant, by words or actions, savored the murder. These words or actions must show debasement or perversion, and not merely that the defendant has a vile state of mind or callous attitude.
Statements suggesting indifference, as well as those reflecting the calculated plan to kill, satisfaction over the apparent success of the plan, extreme callousness, lack of remorse, or bragging after the murder are not enough unless there is evidence that the defendant actually relished the act of murder at or near the time of the killing.
Inflicted Gratuitous Violence
To find that the defendant “inflicted gratuitous violence,” you must find that the defendant intentionally inflicted violence clearly beyond what was necessary to kill the victim, and that the defendant continued to inflict this violence after the defendant knew or should have known that the [defendant had inflicted a fatal injury] [victim was dead].
Needless Mutilation
“Needlessly mutilating” means that the defendant, apart from the killing, committed acts after the victim’s death and separate from the acts that led to the death of the victim, with the intent to disfigure the victim’s body. “Needlessly mutilating” indicates a mental state marked by debasement.
rincess:
