With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for a capital conviction if the only alternative was to set the defendant free with no punishment at all.” Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 646, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2504, 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991). This trial court adhered to the mandate of Beck and Schad by giving jury instructions about the lesser offenses of kidnaping and sexual assault. Finally, we recognize no lesser included offense to felony murder. See State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 23, 926 P.2d 468, 490 (1996). ¶ 29 Appellant also contends that Vickers, 798 F.2d at 369, required the trial court to give a second-degree murder instruction to the jury. In Vickers, the Ninth Circuit held that a judge must give a second-degree murder instruction if “the evidence at trial would have supported a second degree murder conviction.” Id. at 371 (<HOLDING>). Unlike Vickers, however, counsel in this case

A: holding a seconddegree murder instruction was required because the jury may have believed evidence from a defense expert that vickers suffered from impulsive aggression as a result of an epileptic disorder
B: holding that it was not error to allow the penalty phase jury to hear evidence that the defendants previous conviction of seconddegree murder was obtained pursuant to an indictment for firstdegree murder
C: holding jury instruction on lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter by act which required finding of intent to kill constituted fundamental error and required reversal of defendants conviction for seconddegree murder
D: holding that first and seconddegree intentional murder verdicts are consistent with a felony murder verdict because lack of intent is not an element of seconddegree felony murder
A.