State v. Tisius, 2012 Mo. LEXIS 67

Tisius was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for killing Officers Acton and Egley.
At a penalty-phase retrial he was again sentenced to death.
State offered a certified court record of a prior conviction for possession of a prohibited item (boot shank) in the department of corrections; defense objected to hearsay and confrontation/privacy grounds.
Court admitted the certified record as a hearsay exception under section 490.130.
The defense challenged cross-examination, closing arguments, sentencing instructions, burden of proof, Apprendi, and the proportionality review, with the trial court and appellate courts addressing each issue and affirming the death sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of the prior-conviction complaint	Tisius argues hearsay, confrontation, irrelevance.	State contends certified record admissible; relevant to character.	No reversible error; admission upheld as a valid hearsay exception.
Cross-examination of defense expert	Cross-examination relied on improper foundation; prejudicial.	Examination relevant to credibility and whether childhood implies illness.	No plain error; cross-examination within broad defense of credibility.
Closing arguments challenged as improper	State misstated law and encouraged arbitrary outcomes.	Arguments within wide latitude; did not compel verdict.	No plain error; arguments did not manifestly prejudice the sentence.
Failure to include mitigating-evidence language in verdict directors	Omission prevented life-vs-death weighing.	No plain error; prior holdings upheld.	No plain error; instructions properly provided.
Burden-shifting in mitigating instructions (MAI-CR3d 313.44A)	Mitigating evidence burden improperly shifted to defendant.	Law-compliant; burden on mitigators allowed by Marsh and state law.	No error; not a reversible burden-shift.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements require cross-examination.)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (Testimonial vs. nontestimonial; admissibility depends on purpose.)
Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1994) (Future dangerousness permissible in penalty phase.)
Deck v. State, 303 S.W.3d 527 (Mo. banc 2010) (Proportionality review includes similar cases; multiple factors.)
Fassero v. State, 256 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. banc 2008) (Indictment used to prove charge vs. actual conduct; prejudice concerns.)
State v. Taylor, 298 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. banc 2009) (Relevance and admission standards for cross-examined evidence.)