Opinion ID: 2369355
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Other PointsInitial Appeal

Text: The County Surveyor of Saline county testified that the shooting range was situated in Saline County. Complaint is made that he did not properly trace his survey to a government corner. Venue is not an essential element of the offense and need only be established by preponderance of the evidence, to the satisfaction of the court. [3] Testimony of the county surveyor and other witnesses who claim that they are familiar with the boundaries of the county may be received and weighed as probative of the location. [4] The precision that may be required in a case involving land boundaries is not required to establish venue in a criminal case. The challenge to the reasonable doubt definition in MAI-CR3d 302.04 has been rejected in many cases. See State v. Wacaser, 794 S.W.2d 190 (Mo. banc 1990). The defendant complains about MAI-CR3d 313.44, alleging violation of the holdings of Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 108 S.Ct. 1860, 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988), and McKoy v. North Carolina, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 1227, 108 L.Ed.2d 369 (1990), by leading the jury to believe that it may consider only such mitigating circumstances as it unanimously finds. We rejected a similar claim in State v. Petary, 790 S.W.2d 243 (Mo. banc 1990). The defendant also objects to the following language: You may also consider any circumstances which you find from the evidence in mitigation of punishment. Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), is cited for the proposition that the sentencer may not refuse to consider any relevant mitigating evidence. This principle is not violated by an instruction which leaves it to the jury to determine what is mitigating, after hearing all the evidence. There is no claim that the defendant was restricted in the offer of mitigating evidence, or in argument about mitigation. It is next argued that the aggravating circumstances of killing during the course of a robbery and killing for pecuniary gain are duplicating. This contention was rejected in Jones v. State, 784 S.W.2d 789 (Mo. banc 1990). Contrary to the defendant's assertion, the evidence permitted the jury to find robbery and also a desire to profit. The defendant's admission to another prisoner that he did it to get money supports the findings. Even though the prisoner may be an unmitigated scoundrel the weight of his testimony is for the jury to assess. The opposition of the parents of one of the victims to capital punishment is not a material circumstance, and there was no violation of discovery principles in not disclosing this opposition. A criminal prosecution is a public matter and not a contest between the defendant and his victims, or their relatives.