292, 670 P.2d at 397 (identical assertion rejected). 2 . Because we reduce defendant’s death sentence to life, we do not consider whether Junior’s statements supporting the trial court’s finding of cruelty were properly considered by the trial court when sentencing defendant. FELDMAN, Chief Justice, specially concurring. I agree with the lead opinion’s analysis and result but write separately to set forth some additional views regarding the mitigating circumstances of duress. I believe there is mitigating value in the fact that the jury did not find that Mickel had killed with premeditation. In my view, the lack of premeditation tends to support the conclusion that Mickel reacted to and obeyed his father’s command to kill. Cf. State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 554, 804 P.2d 72, 87 (1991) (<HOLDING>). In evaluating the issue of duress, we must
holding in the absence of alj findings supported by specific weighing of the evidence we cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately supports the aljs conclusion and thus the aljs unexplained conclusion was beyond meaningful review holding that the absence of premeditation supported conclusion that defendant killed in fear of his own life and therefore it should be weighed in mitigation holding that a defendant should not profit from his own outburst holding that it is error to conduct most of the jury selection process in the absence of the defendant holding that outofstate plaintiff had procured his own absence at trial of his case where record contained no intimation that his absence resulted from any reason other than his own volition