V] oir 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.

Martinez-Villareal was convicted of murder in Arizona and his conviction and sentence of death were upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court.

He unsuccessfully challenged his conviction and sentence on direct appeal in the Arizona state courts.

For this review, we have considered those cases in which the trial judge sentenced the defendant to death based upon a finding of two aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to require lenience

In addition to the present case, on at least 12 occasions the Arizona Supreme Court has found that a particular murder was especially heinous and/or depraved but not especially cruel.

We recently upheld our long-standing position that questioning prospective jurors about their position regarding capital punishment is permissible to determine whether they would be unable to perform their duties because of their bias regarding the death penalty.

The Arizona Supreme Court has identified other particularly reprehensible motives which, in its view, will support a finding of heinousness or depravity.

[CITATION] Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal