With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1710 (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)). The important criterion in a vagueness analysis of an aggravating circumstance is narrowing: “A capital sentencing scheme must, in short, provide a meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which [the penalty] is imposed from the many cases in which it is not.” Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 427, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980) (quotation marks omitted; alteration in original). Our analysis is relatively simple in this case. Even though the aggravator at issue was phrased as “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or depravity of mind,” the jury held more narrowly that “the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel and h Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1120, 115 S.Ct. 923,

A: holding that intentional torture suffices
B: holding that intentional acts exclusion applies to intentional act of child molestation
C: holding that no intentional police misrepresentation occurred
D: recognizing a tort for the intentional spoliation of evidence
A.