Opinion ID: 1756872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Point Ten: Mitigating Circumstance Instruction

Text: In the tenth point, Appellant argues the trial court erred in overruling Appellant's objection to the mitigating circumstances instruction and refusing Appellant's modified instruction. Appellant argues the state, not the defendant, has the burden to prove the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors. In the penalty phase instruction conference, the mitigating circumstances instruction [19] was offered over Appellant's modified instruction [20] and objections. The three objections Appellant raised were: (1) the instruction did not contain a burden of proof that the aggravating factors must outweigh the mitigating factors; (2) the burden of proof is shifted to the Appellant to prove the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors; and (3) the jury was not informed that when the aggravating and mitigating factors are given equal weight, life without parole is the proper verdict. The trial court accepted the instruction as submitted by the State. [21] Appellant preserved this point in the motion for new trial. Appellant's argument that the instruction improperly shifts the burden of proof has been rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this Court. The United States Supreme Court stated: So long as a State's method of allocating the burdens of proof does not lessen the State's burden to prove every element of the offense charged, or in this case to prove the existence of aggravating circumstances, a defendant's constitutional rights are not violated by placing on him the burden of proving mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, 170-71, 126 S.Ct. 2516, 165 L.Ed.2d 429 (2006) (quoting Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 650, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990) ( overruled on other grounds by Ring, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556)). This Court has also rejected the argument in State v. Taylor, 134 S.W.3d 21, 30 (Mo. banc 2004). The trial court did not err. The point is denied.