that a pecuniary gain motive was proved beyond a reasonable doubt for each of the murders. Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 351 11105, 111 P.3d at 393. 5 . Given our resolution of this issue, we need not today determine whether a jury verdict of guilty for armed robbery is also a finding that the robbery was motivated by the expectation of the receipt of pecuniary gain. See A.R.S. § 13-1902(A) ("A person commits robbery if in the course of taking any property of another from his person or immediate presence and against his will, such person threatens or uses force against any person with intent either to coerce surrender of property or to prevent resistance to such person taking or retaining property.") (emphasis added). But cf. State v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142, 161, 692 P.2d 991, 1010 (1984)
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 holding that the crime of attempted first degree felony murder does not exist holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense holding that a conviction of first degree felony murder based on the predicate felony of robbery does not establish the pecuniary gain aggravator set forth in  13703f5 with respect to the murder holding that where both firstdegree and felony murder were possible bases for a murder conviction a jury instruction that suggested the jury could rely on felony murder as the predicate offense for a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder was improper because under arizona law a conviction for conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder requires a specific intent to kill