With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on those more likely to prevail, far from evidence of incompetence, is the hallmark of effective appellate advocacy.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). It has long been settled that a state’s capital sentencing scheme may not allow for the imposition of the death penalty in channeling and limiting of the sentencer’s discretion in imposing the death penalty is a fundamental constitutional requirement for sufficiently minimizing the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action.” Maynard, 486 U.S. at 362, 108 S.Ct. 1853. A statutory circumstance that is alone too vague to provide meaningful guidance to the sentencer may be accompanied by a limiting instruction which does provide sufficient guidance. See Shell v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 1, 1-3, 111 S.Ct. 313, 112 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 653, 110

A: holding that oklahomas especially heinous atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague
B: holding that a limit ing instruction which defined the terms heinous atrocious or cruel in equally vague language was not constitutionally sufficient
C: holding unconstitutionally vague under the reasoning of godfrey an aggravatingcircumstances instruction directing jurors to determine whether the murder was especially heinous atrocious and cruel
D: recognizing that north carolinas heinous atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstance requires a limiting construction
B.