Opinion ID: 1756872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Point Nine: Depravity of Mind

Text: In the ninth point, Appellant argues the trial court erred in overruling the objection to the statutory aggravating circumstances instruction because the depravity of mind factor is unconstitutionally vague. The statutory aggravating circumstances instruction included the depravity of mind factor. The relevant portion of the instruction, based on MAI-CR3d 314.40: In determining the punishment to be assessed against the defendant for the murder of Sgt. William McEntee, you must first consider whether one or more of the following statutory aggravating circumstances exists: . . . . 2. Whether the murder of Sgt. William McEntee involved depravity of mind and whether, as a result thereof, the murder was outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman. You can make a determination of depravity of mind only if you find that the defendant committed repeated and excessive acts of physical abuse upon Sgt. William McEntee and the killing was therefore unreasonably brutal. (Emphasis added). Appellant's objection to the factor as unconstitutionally vague was overruled. During deliberations, the jury asked for the definition of depravity of mind to which the trial court directed the jury to the instructions provided. The jury then requested a dictionary, which was denied. The jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder of Sgt. McEntee involved depravity of mind. [17] Appellant renewed his objection to the instruction as unconstitutionally vague in the motion for new trial. This Court has previously found the instruction is not unconstitutionally vague as sufficient guidance is provided. Johnson I, 207 S.W.3d at 46. The depravity of mind factor requires evidence to support at least one factor established in State v. Preston, 673 S.W.2d 1, 11 (Mo. banc 1984). State v. Griffin, 756 S.W.2d 475, 490 (Mo. banc 1988); see also MAI-CR-3d 314.40, Notes on Use 8(D). The Preston factors are: mental state of defendant, infliction of physical or psychological torture upon the victim as when victim has a substantial period of time before death to anticipate and reflect upon it; brutality of defendant's conduct; mutilation of the body after death; absence of any substantive motive; absence of defendant's remorse and the nature of the crime. 673 S.W.2d at 11. The notes to MAI-CR3d 314.40 provide ten phrases that may be used, depending upon the facts of a case, to comply with the Preston factors. [18] MAI-CR-3d 314.40, Notes on Use 8(B), (D). In this case, the instruction used the phrase that the defendant committed repeated and excessive acts of physical abuse upon Sgt. William McEntee and the killing was therefore unreasonably brutal, which the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt. The instruction was not vague as the specific language defines depravity of mind. There was no error in submitting the instruction, and Appellant was not prejudiced. The point is denied.