Opinion ID: 2449917
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Submission of Depravity of Mind Factor

Text: Hall also challenges for the first time on appeal the depravity of mind factor. Section 565.032.2(7). The court submitted to the jury: Whether the murder of Barbara Wood 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: 1. That the defendant's selection of the person he killed was random and without regard to the victim's identity and that defendant's killing of Barbara Wood thereby exhibited a callous disregard for the sanctity of all human life. Hall argues that for crimes where the defendant has not acted alone, the instruction must make clear that a finding of depravity of mind must be premised upon the acts and `intent' of the defendant, not those of any other person, relying on the language of MAI-CR 3d 313.40 n. 7(B). Hall's brief omits the language immediately preceding the phrase that he borrowed: If depravity of mind is being submitted where the defendant acted with or aided another in the killing, these paragraphs may be modified accordingly. Any such modification must make clear ... Id. (emphasis added). It is not mandatory that the instruction be modified. Moreover, the evidence was that Hall was alone with Wood on the Bridge when he pushed her over. No error occurred. Hall also asserts that it was manifestly unjust to instruct on the depravity of mind factor without reference to torture. The Notes on Use for MAI-CR 3d 313.40 expressly permits depravity of mind to be submitted together with torture, or by itself, as long it is accompanied by a phrase such as the one set out above regarding randomness and the callous disregard for human life. MAI-CR 3d 313.40 n. 7(B)(8). No error occurred. In another related point, Hall claims that he had no notice that the random and callous disregard for human life limiting language would be offered. This Court has rejected this argument, holding that it is sufficient notice that the State makes known before trial that it will rely on Section 565.032.2(7). State ex rel. Dally v. Elliston, 811 S.W.2d 371, 374 (Mo. banc 1991). It is presumed that counsel and the trial court are aware of the factor's limitations and the requirement of MAI-CR 3d 313.40 that the factor be submitted with an accompanying definition. There is no manifest injustice. Additionally, Hall makes a constitutional challenge to the depravity of mind factor. This Court has repeatedly held when the factor is submitted together with a limiting instruction, the jurors receive sufficient guidance and the instruction is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Tokar, 918 S.W.2d 753 (Mo. banc 1996); Mease, 842 S.W.2d at 113; Sidebottom v. State, 781 S.W.2d 791, 799 (Mo. banc 1989).