With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". when compared to other capital offenses, see § 13A-5-49(8), Ala. Code 1975. Further, the court instructed the jury that it could not proceed to a vote on whether to impose the death penalty unless it first unanimously found the existence of at least one aggravating circumstance. Additionally, the court supplied the jury with special interrogatory forms the jury was instructed to complete regarding whether it had unanimously found the existence of the aforementioned aggravating circumstances. The interrogatories indicate that the jury found the existence of both aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. (Supp. C. 50-51.) Thus, it is clear that the jury unanimously found the existence of at least one aggravating circumstance. See Ex parte McNabb, 887 So.2d 998 (Ala.2004) (<HOLDING>). Thus, no Ring violation is present in this

A: recognizing that even a nonunanimous recommendation of death by the jury proved that the jury including the jurors who voted against the recommendation of death had unanimously found the existence of a proffered aggravating circumstance even though the circumstance was not included within the definition of the particular capitalmurder offense charged in the indictment because the trial court had specifically instructed the jury that it could not proceed to a vote on whether to impose the death penalty unless it had already unanimously agreed that an aggravating circumstance existed
B: holding that a sentencing judge sitting without a jury may not find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty
C: holding that under the alabama death penalty statute because the judge did not consider the jurys recommendation the statute which forced the jury to sentence the defendant to death whenever aggravating circumstances existed was not unconstitutional
D: holding that an aggravating circumstance in the georgia death penalty statute was unconstitutionally vague
A.