Hi AZlawyer,
1) In determining 'cruelty', is the emphasis placed on the victim's experience, or the murderer's intention? I had read that the factor of cruelty is met when a victim suffered physical pain and/or mental anguish and the defendant knew, or should have known, that the victim would suffer. That definition doesn't seem to take into account the defendant's intention. However your quoted reply above to another user's question suggests that JA testifying that she never "intended for him to suffer" could be a mitigating factor in the aggravating phase. Could a 'botched' job of a potentially merciful killing still result in 'cruelty' being met, if the victim suffered? I would imagine yes, but would really appreciate your opinion.
2) Similarly, let's look at a specific possibility in this case. Let's say for argument's sake that JA's original intention was to kill Travis by shooting him once or twice in the head. However, she's a poor shot and only wounds him with the first shot, followed by the gun jamming. JA panics, runs to the kitchen and comes back with a knife. Unskilled in knife-combat, she 'tries' to kill him as swiftly as possible, but clearly causes a prolonged, painful and presumably terrifying execution for the already injured and unarmed Travis. In this 'hypothetical' (not!) scenario, has the criteria for cruelty been met? I would hope so, even though it could be argued that JA's intention throughout the massacre was to do away with Travis as quickly as possible.
TIA, and thanks so much for all your replies here.