*1 surprise, my opinion but in that will not do agree permitting unable to with I am serving handling giving de- of no- prosecution get by to with not a method of as trial morning until the There aggravating fense counsel circumstances. tice of circumstances. with notice of statutory aggravating circum- are fifteen is to seek to take a man’s life For the state we not have to decide stances and should insist that serious matter and we should a on the basis of whether the matter of notice fash- orderly the state in a fair and proceed ought to have been aware the defendant must make ion. The state knows that it going to do about prosecutor what the was evidence in known in advance of trial the That aggravating circumstances. specific introduced. aggravation proposed to be disputes. only unnecessary to factual leads notice, and necessarily timely This means if the state All this would be eliminated timely. morning of trial is not notice on the reasonably give required to act were aggravating circumstances is The matter of proposed what it to do. timely notice of no Without trifling matter. accept any less where the should circumstances, possible. is penalty no death defendant’s life. is to take the outcome what is entitled to know The defendant is counsel regard. in this Defense claimed claim and appraise
needs to the state’s time This cannot be done prepare to meet it. morning until the given
when notice is not a prosecutor
of the trial. A remark he intends to seek the
month earlier that prose- The penalty is no substitute. He is not cutor has to do more than that. Missouri, Respondent, STATE remark, knows that bound such a and he such remark alone is not sufficient. a speculate
defense should not have to on TRIMBLE, Appellant. Patrick E. in- prosecutor actually whether or not the No. or whether penalty tends to seek the death using negotiat- he as a merely this threat Missouri, Supreme Court case, In this ing chip plea bargaining. En Banc. trial the example, just a month before 31, 1982. Aug. accept guilty ready prosecution charge. plea degree a second 7, 1982. Rehearing Denied Oct. defendant refus- Then for some reason the For all the through ed with the deal. go knew, remark prosecutor’s
defense
no more than threat. will not plain
I it that we would make handling sort of of a death
permit this undue imposing any case. It is not prosecu- require
burden on the state to respect to timely
tor to notice with give in cases where
aggravating circumstances sought. Prosecutors requirement, easily comply
can with this insist on it. We are
and I think we should give we our precedent when
setting bad here. The
tacit to what occurred approval all, that, de- after
principal opinion says prior con-
fendant himself knew about any
victions, could not have come so that *4 Holmes, Louis, appel-
Cynthia St. S. lant. Ashcroft, Gen., M. Mor- Atty.
John John ris, Gen., Atty. City, Asst. Jefferson respondent.
MORGAN,Judge. Trimble, was appellant,
The Patrick E. of jury guilty tried to a which found him punishment capital murder and assessed his 565.001, and 565.- 565.008 death. Secs. was entered Judgment 1978. RSMo to this accordingly appealed and he has juris- appellate Court which has exclusive Article V by reason of 3 of diction Section Having of the Constitution of Missouri. Appellant placed burn- play competently. enumer- and all errors reviewed considered the sentence his victim’s toes while by way appeal ing ated matches between ap- slept point mandated at one burned what he right same is affirmed. be letters into Everett’s peared to shampoo by using burning plastic forearm trial, from presented At evidence was Expert this torture. bottle to administer following which the could find burns were indicated that these testimony beyond facts a reasonable doubt: deep autopsy. at the half inch one Everett, victim, a white Jerry The James appellant showed The evidence male, arrest- age, had been twenty years or homo- “punk” victim as his treated the placed stealing a van and charges ed on the victim to partner. He forced sexual Octo- jail around County the St. Charles intercourse with both oral and anal twenty year ber also Appellant, him, “bra” compelled him to wear a around male, two approximately old white arrived other jail for the entertainment of the charges days disposition later to await inmates, point sodomizing two nine forced him at one kidnapping, raping and rag inmates a that had year girls. display old to the other Appellant made into his anus. been stuffed shows that to the other inmates kisses his victim offer serving prospect dissatisfied with the jail trustee for a him to a and offered to sell charges because he pending time under the completed this cigarettes. He carton of have lit- penitentiary inmates believed that abuse homosexual pattern of torture and charges “up” on such tle use for those *5 compelling Ever- and repeated beatings dangerous for would make life difficult and jail cells in mop the four sweep ett to and stated, inmates him. to three different He occasions, fol- different the block on several Jail, that he in- County Charles St. he worked and around while lowing Everett and something bigger” tended to “catch when he failed to beating him with his fists murder,” killing “capital would commit comply. guard. either another inmate or a 11, appellant told Sunday, November week or so before On during the
Sometime Rice that he 12, 1979, weighed who and John appellant, November Kenneth Schwab tall, keep 6'1" him from 210 lbs. and was kill Everett approximately intended to Everett, authorities, weighed who when he went to upon Jerry informing settled tall, lbs. and was 5'10" approximately 145 of the sexual abuse on court November that as his victim. The evidence shows appears to This motive he had suffered. may never mentally slow and Everett because his earlier motive superseded have happen- comprehended what fully hide crime a scheme to his appellant devised observed that ing to him. inmates Several penitentiary it to the publish rather than slow, his mother testi- mentally he was and killing, he com- day before the society. drug problems, fied that he had had some note to his write a suicide pelled Everett to numerous oc- had run from home on away live he could not explaining that parents, casions, at around begun had to withdraw cry telling them not them and away from re- a loner and had age had become the Lord accepted had because he for him counseling hospital in a in inpatient ceived showed that The evidence into his life. also stated that Memphis, Tennessee. She having accepted quite religious, victim was that it was difficulty writing he and had before; he that years Jesus into his life jail he knew his address. She unlikely that reading jail of his time spent much had him the address had even to send Bible; initially ma- and, had appellant that he had lived. the home where victim’s confi- into the neuvered himself a minister. himself as by representing dence occasions, with appellant, On numerous placed and paper written on The note was inmates, Everett’s food jail’s other took both stamped envelope, addressed and that in an games in card winning after it given him. had which the victim’s mother and could not did not understand victim Appellant telling lishing dictated its contents after the above facts: three who heard going Donald Hill he was to have Everett appellant express his intention to commit a write a suicide note. “capital murder” to going up avoid on charges raping, sodomizing kidnap- Appellant prepared slay- further for the ping and who children were released from ing by tying strips together of towels jail a week before the slaying; and six had one of the inmates testing assist him in torture, eyewitnesses who were to the sexu- strength. their Shortly after dinner on No- strangulation. al abuse 12, 1979, vember appellant took Everett to Everett’s cell placed and there a blanket POINT I him, around which he described as Everett’s contends, point, in his first “dress.” He they told victim that were overruling the trial court erred in his mo- going to play “hangman’s game.” Ap- tion sentencing for a new trial and him to pellant compelled Everett to sit in front of jury death because the conducted itself im- him on the appellant floor while sat on one properly in that its verdict that of the bunks with Everett’s back and head should receive the death was not against braced appellant’s Appel- knees. placed mouth; clearly upon finding statutory lant based of a a towel in his victim’s then, circumstance. the course of twenty fifteen to minutes, he strangled by twisting Everett trial, jury At the after the had returned a towel around his point, neck. At some Ev- guilty verdict on the charge mur- erett’s neck was fractured. Appellant der, the court instructed the it made the remark to one inmate that it took could if assess it found very long time to kill Everett. either of two circumstances:
Several inmates (1) testified in addition to that at the time Jerry of the murder of the above facts saw appellant James Everett defendant was trying to lift body Everett’s up confinement; to where lawful custody of a appellant had tied a strip of towel (2) on the or that the Jerry murder of James Ever- upper None, however, bars of the cell. ever ett was purpose committed for the of avoid- observed hanging Everett *6 from this towel. ing a lawful arrest of jury defendant. The following returned the punish- verdict on Shortly after the strangulation, appellant ment: called the inmates to his cell and told them plan that his was to make the “We, death look jury, having the found the defend- like a suicide and they say that were to they ant Patrick E. Trimble guilty of the were all watching t.v. when it Everett, occurred. Jerry murder of James fix the He told them that he had connections on death, punishment defendant’s at we and the outside and indicated that he would designate the following aggravating cir- have them they killed if told on him. He cumstance or circumstances which we find then returned to Everett’s cell and directed beyond a reasonable doubt: that at the one inmates, Rice, of the John to call the time of the murder of Jerry James Everett guards. arrived, When they they observed the defendant was in custody the lawful of appellant removing a towel from place Everett’s a of confinement and as a deterrent neck Tate, and and Alvin who to further of acts violents This ver- [sic].” mate, was Everett’s cell lifting Everett’s dict p. was returned at 10:14 m. At 10:06 body hallway. into the guards m., The ordered p. jury the had sent a note to the court the inmates into their cells and unsuccess- inquiry: jury with the following “The fully attempted to know, revive Everett. Initial- would put like to if all we have to on ly, the inmates told the authorities that the verdict form is ‘that at the time of the watching had been thought t.v. and Everett the Jerry of defendant was Later, Everett had committed suicide. in the custody lawful of a of confine- however, a total of nine inmates made referring ment.’ We are to the form for police investigators statements to the estab- penalty. go Or do we have to 732 II the POINT detail.” The court sent lengthy
into at “I have following p. answer 10:10 m.: argues the trial court that I cannot your received communication. refusing motion for a mistrial erred in instructions any make comment or further appellant’s prosecutor the referred when the instruc- you. only you I can refer charged rape kidnap- with and having been you you.” have with already tions which closing opening statements ping in his and witnesses. He in his examination of and is whether presented question The prejudicial quality this that contends ag- statutory a upon its verdict jury based outweighed probative value as evidence it ex- whether circumstance or gravating court abused its and that the trial to motive and its discretion the bounds of ceeded had other avail- because the state discretion its own upon a rationale its verdict based probative motive. equally evidence able the ver- that Appellant contends devising. it is that and ambiguous on its face dict is A has criminal defendant as- would jury whether unclear right to be tried the crime only for finding of a penalty upon sessed which charged, crimes with he is cir- statutory designated admission of crimes evidence of unrelated is this court He that argues alone. cumstance prejudicial because result in a it con jury to review the action is unable upon which viction founded crimes of therefore, acted must, it has find that Thus, was not accused. evidence manner. arbitrary capricious in an only of other crimes is where admissible it disagree. legitimate has a establish tendency to that
the defendant is of the guilty immediate charged. crime Evidence thereof admis Requiring jury find motive, sible where it tends to establish is de statutory aggravating circumstance intent, accident, the absence mistake or signed prevent arbitrary capri embracing common scheme or the com plan imposition cious of death sentences. Find mission of two or more crimes so related circumstance, ing statutory aggravating proof one establish tends to however, only requirement threshold other, charged identity person or the can, jury that must be met before the after with the crime on commission of the trial. evidence, considering all the recommend the Bolder, death sentence. State v. 635 added) (Mo. (Emphasis prejudi
S.W.2d
Appellant’s argument
1982).
statutory
The
circum
cial albeit relevant
should be ex
is to channel
jury’s
stance
Shaw,
discretion.
was raised
cluded
in State
instant case affirmed the
(Mo.banc 1982),
there we
*7
of the one
circum
presence
relevance,
prejudice,
the
that
stated
verdict,
in
specified
stance
its
and the evi
and that
process
of due
the
touchstone
that
supports
finding.
dence
Cf.
v.
State
effect
prejudicial
of
the
question whether
Mercer,
1, 10,
(Mo.banc 1981)
618 S.W.2d
n.5
probative value
outweighs
of evidence
its
Baker,
v. Robert
and State
POINT III by reducing degree of the result doned Appellant next contends that the trial Clearly, it would be no de ing offense. instructing court erred in that it capital murder that the defendant fense could find as an aggravating circumstance and, it would unlawfully; was incarcerated capital murder had occurred while policies be with the and reasons inconsistent appellant was in the custody lawful of a underlying the above cited cases and stat place of confinement because the state had utes now to hold that the cir presented no evidence that the custody was cumstance of a lawful. argues that the state negated where the lawful confinement is prove beyond must a reasonable doubt that arrest, example, underlying was not lawful, his initial custody arrest and were lawful. e.g., probable that there was cause Second, custody by a distinction between disagree.
arrest. We authority by and confinement lawful legally person
The unauthorized is consistent meaning custody” “lawful 565.012.2(9), legitimate law and serves a has not been with basic tort Therefore, confined purpose. construed. we hold that this state Where one is phrase law,” legally person, unauthorized one has “custody means under color of However, is, right of self-defense. one does custody authority. of a lawful where adjective right “lawful” not have the of self-defense takes as definien- authority unless the custody dum the a lawful authority enforcing the confine policy unlawful force. The custody. agree authority ment and not the with uses underlying underly- the distinction is that impliedly state that the statute distin *8 guishes ing statutory aggravating circumstanc- custody by between a lawful au the who are lawful- thority by legally protect and confinement unau es to the authorities guard pe- person ly appointed thorized or The reasons are to administrate and entity. Bolder, supra, nal facilities. v. threefold: State 683; Shaw, supra, State v. at 674. First, the contrary construction would not square Third, contrary with other the earlier be to statutes and to hold to the would pronouncements flowing of this court that construe from this render the death
734 punishment guilt phase of the trial. arbitrary circumstance and ca- court, pricious however, penalty given the would The did not instruct on because depend upon not the defendant’s conduct or appellant’s argument punishment, and so is control, but, rather, circumstances under only the really allegation an that court did upon police making of the in an the conduct of the adequate argu not exercise control legislature the illegal arrest or of in enact- has ments. The trial court considerable ing a bad law. rejecting argument allowing discretion in counsel, rulings its are reversible required that the state We hold where only argu for abuse of discretion only custody to show that the was under plainly ment is unwarranted. State v. present and that the color of law Moore, (Mo.1981). 620 370 More S.W.2d support finding ed was be sufficient over, that the appellant must show abuse yond a reasonable doubt that him. prejudiced that discretion State v. capital murder while in the committed a Wood, 1980), (Mo.banc 596 394 cert. S.W.2d of a custody lawful confinement. denied, 876, 221, 449 101 S.Ct. 66 U.S. (1981). 98 L.Ed.2d IV POINT argues next that the counsel Appellant’s trial indi judgment must be reversed and the case cated to the court his intention describe punish the state argued remanded because penalties closing argument before in his closing argument jury ment in before the light jury guilt. In of this determined guilt. argument This had determined Holt, court’s v. statements State for first time on appeal indeed, raised — 1980), (Mo.banc jury that a S.W.2d invited alleged error was at the trial— punishment choos may properly consider plain must be reviewed under the error degree ing to convict on second murder rule, 29.12(b); “alleged errors on Rule murder, appellant’s re rather than capital do not relief under closing argument justify at trial not unreasonable and the quest error unless are deter plain [the rule] its discretion in trial court did not abuse mined to have a decisive effect on acceding Appellant cannot request. to this Murphy, jury.” prosecu complain that the now be heard to (Mo.banc 1979). That penalties. appel tor described the states Section actually not avail trial did lant’s counsel an upon of all trials the conclusion “[a]t is of no moment opportunity himself capital for mur- or information indictment not know could prosecutor because the by jury, argument der after heard in the instruction con appellant would state court, charge proper counsel and from argue and then ference would so that he retire to consider a verdict jury shall argue after the state had.1 point not any without considera- guilty guilty or not Sup- 15.00 punishment.” tion of MAI-CR note, review of finally, upon plemental Notes on Use state that “[i]f the state did not the whole record that capital submitted to the jury, murder is punishment. It restricted itself to “argue” punishment any for that offense and for pen of the simple, declarative statement offense submitted therewith lesser included charged. degree of homicide alties each omitted, though even must be all, not abuse discretion In the court did capital has been demands of acceding to the reasonable waived.” counsel, argument state’s did Therefore, point prejudice appellant. it would have error for Clearly, been on denied. to have instructed the the court edged not. is not a two imply State v. Holt sword state hold nor that the We here neither generally punishment to break down the be used the issue of into can introduce guilt murder trial. phase bifurcated of a trial where a has structure *9 not to strike the proper, it was error
POINT V opinions as to his witnesses’ volunteered Appellant alleges the trial court next are first raised these issues veracity. Since failing erred in to strike the state’s notice only review them as appeal, on we will aggravating of evidence of circumstances 29.12(b). find no error Rule We plain under give adequate because it did not him notice error. opportunity prepare. Specifically, ap- to pellant aggra- contends that a disclosure of stand, takes the When a witness vating comply circumstances must with truthfulness places reputation he his for provide Rule 23.01 and with may in issue and the state veracity circumstance, notice of aggravating reputa general evidence of his then offer specific supporting that circum- v. veracity. State tion for truthfulness stance and the names and addresses of all Brookshire, 373, (Mo.1963). 368 S.W.2d disagree. material witnesses. We Here, testified in his own appellant had 565.006.2, 1978, behalf,
Section
“plainly”
and the court did not err
“[o]nly
aggra
states that
such evidence in
permitting
the witnesses to
or otherwise
prosecution
vation as the
has made known
ve
testify
appellant’s reputation
as to
prior
to the defendant
to
trial shall
be
racity and truthfulness.
admissible.” The statute
does
state or
Generally, a witness should not
suggest
something
on the order of a
testify
opinion
as to his
of the accused’s
separate indictment or information is re
Antwine,
character.
506 S.W.2d
quired. We decline the invitation to read
405,
(Mo.1974). Federal Rule
how
requirements
useless
into the statute. Un
ever,
evidence,
opinion
such
permits
der
currently
Rule
defendants
receive
can
veracity
evidence on
and truthfulness
specific
notice of the crimes for which
process.
to violate due
generally
not be said
are charged,
constituting
facts
the offense
reputation-only
rationale of the
classic
the time and
of the offense. Ad
Gaasbeck,
v. Van
People
rule was stated
ditionally, they receive notice of what wit
(1907); classic
189 N.Y.
guage of the statute is sufficient where the ed., (3d 1940). The thrust Evidence information give states facts sufficient opin permitting of Van Gaasbeck was that notice of the crime charged and contains inquiries ion evidence would lead to endless the names of all witnesses from whom opinions into the basis of and innumerable be discovered the evidence of aggravat proc not a due disputes. collateral This is ing circumstances. Such notice is all the except ess concern insofar as a defendant process that is due even where the death when a becomes process denied due penalty may imposed. appellant be Here by collateral issues. In the case confused received notice circum bar, magni of constitutional no confusion 23, 1980, stances on June a month before put a resulted because the state itself tude trial, and received the Information on Janu express stop attempts to the witnesses’ ary Together, ag the notice of Thus, say that opinions. their we cannot gravating circumstances and the Informa injustice when manifest appellant suffered tion were sufficient notice. strike the witnesses’ testi the court did not point is denied. mony sponte, sua
POINT VI Appellant next contends that the trial VII POINT police three offi- permitting court erred the trial reputation to the of the next contends testify cers own mo- striking He in not on its veracity and truthfulness. court erred victim’s mother testimony testimony if tion the that even such contends also *10 736 Wood, discretion is shown. was not relevant was inflam- 596
because it and 1980). Again, (Mo.banc we will this issue matory. review 402 Whether rule, 29.12(b), plain under the error Rule potentially prejudicial inflammatory evi- appeal raised it on for the appellant because the trial dence is is within court’s admitted no first time. We find error. discretion, relevancy is the principal and criterion. 403. Our review of the Id. at trial, placed the victim’s appellant At the record show that trial court does not issue, he testifying mental state discretion, point abused and the is de- its hanging discovered Everett neck by the nied. from Additionally, the bars. a suicide note bunk, was discovered on Everett’s state’s witnesses testified that VIII POINT stated that he would have write a Everett his levels point, appellant In final several suicide note and that dictat- saw him 565.001, upon §§ constitutional attacks ing Everett to Everett as wrote. The note 565.003, 565.006, 565.008 and placed stamped was as follows and was in a contends Specifically, he envelope with return address: imposition penalty arbitrary of the death Mom and Dad “Dear (1) prosecutor capricious and because to sorry I’m to have send this letter capital in a charge has to murder discretion but, pressure being I can’t handle the of case; (2) has particular unbridled away from You and Dad. I know I’ve a find discretion because it can pain. a lot of you sorry caused both and and a guilty guilty not murder of capital way. you I fell its best this I So love offense; (3) lesser the mechanism included much, please very cry, both and don’t compare which can homicides the court accepted my I because have Lord into penal institu- jail committed in or other a will, life, heaven, I know I go and to (4) imposition of the inadequate; tion is always remember me not imple- does penalty death in this case Your Son interest; (5) and ment a state legitimate Jerry Everett [sic]” been shown to be has not The victim’s mother testified that her son argues that Finally, appellant a deterrent. years had a had not been Christian and overbroad and vague statutes are recently sug- been converted the note violate the Protection Clause. Equal
gested. he stated that had had some She personal age he had the mental problems: A. loner, 13; begun he having 12 or was 16; age had withdraw at about he had has discretion prosecutor That the that he not drug problems. some She testified does render murder charging capital ap- recently counseling capricious, had received arbitrary and peared improving; family 153, 199, to be Gregg v. 428 U.S. S.Ct. Georgia, fishing recently had been in Canada and (1976), nor does L.Ed.2d planning trip Jerry was a sailboat when a defendant acquit jury’s discretion arrested; and, that he enjoyed had him of and convict capital murder looking trips. forward these Final- Gregg, In offense. lesser included ly, the witness testified that the letter did stated: Supreme United Court States spelling not because Jerry’s seem authentic discretionary these existence were he did composition normally poor, issues stages is not determinative mail, he sign not ever his would not know stages these an before each of us. At his and he had lived with return address justice system criminal actor time. parents some which remove makes a decision aas consideration candi- left defendant from Questions relevancy are Furman, penalty. date for the death of the trial court and the discretion im- contrast, with the decision to only if an abuse of dealt will be disturbed ruling pose specific merely the death sentence on a indi- to deter in prisons capi- vidual not, who had been convicted of imprisonment may where but to deter *11 tal offense. them in every case. It is not a condition precedent penalty capital to the death Discretionary acts before the murder with the circumstance sentencing phase are irrelevant to whether that killing prison the was in a that the capri the death is and arbitrary previously given defendant had been a life cious. Only discretionary acts that concern found, sentence. That this court has em- punishment and that occur after conviction (see Bolder, ploying a rational basis test for capital murder are relevant to this issue. 682) supra, legislature legiti- at Thus, prosecutor’s prose discretion to mately could have considered those instanc- cute jury’s acquit and the discretion to imprisonment es where was not an ade- capital murder Similarly, are irrelevant. quate deterrent does not foreclose our find- by mechanism which this court com test, ing, under rational basis pares capital jails murders committed in or legislature legitimately could have 'aimed penal other institutions need not include deterring this circumstance at “cases such as those in which the state all capital any prison. leg- murders in The charge chose not to capi a defendant with islature have had several reasons: de- murder, tal the state agreed plea to a bar undeterred; terring pro- those otherwise gain whereby a pled guilty to a tecting prison guards daily who serve the charge, lesser the conviction was for an environment; dangerous state in a pro- offense murder, less than capital or the tecting prison other inmates who are rela- state waived death penalty.” State v. tively prison defenseless in the environ- Bolder, And, thus, supra, at 685. the mech ment. Shaw, 677, In v. supra, State at we anism which this court will compare said imprisoned violating “[t]hose appellant’s case to capital other our upon laws have cast the state both the cases in Missouri adequate although it of, for, expense responsibility their does not compare capital murder cases with safe care while in confinement.” lesser degrees of homicide with cases where no charges were brought and does C.
not compare the treatment of defendants at the charging plea bargaining stages. Appellant argues that the death
penalty has not been shown to be a deter and, therefore, rent is cruel and unusual B. punishment. This question was raised and Bolder, 683, v. supra, State at stat disposed Gregg Georgia, supra, of in v. ed that legislature, in adopting 565.- legislature rationally 183-88. The could de 012.2(9), 1978, reasonably could have termine that the death penalty is a deter concluded that the death penalty appro Moreover, rent. has oth priate “when imprisonment already im legitimate er purposes, namely, incapacita posed does not deter capital murder. The tion and retribution. imposition of capital punishment is rational ly related to the state’s obviously legitimate D. preventing
interests in protecting crime and persons, other prison such as employees and Appellant argues, finally, that stat inmates, other prisoners with whom come in vague utes are and overbroad and violate contact.” argues that because he Equal Protection. He offers no reason for had not claim, been convicted was merely sustaining this and we see no reason awaiting trial when he capi committed the previous holdings to reconsider our in State murder, tal legitimate purposes Newlon, 606, 162-13 (Mo.banc v. 627 S.W.2d statute would 1982), filed, not be served imposing petition (U.S. May for cert. penalty. death legitimate 1982) (No. Bolder, The state 816660), and v. State purpose expressed in the statute is not supra, seq., aggra- at et which held that the 1982) (No. Mercer, v.
vating
81-6660);
circumstance for which
State
denied, 454 U.S.
(Mo.banc),
cert.
sentenced
death does
violate
(1981).
Equal
point
is de-
cause of
(Mo.banc 1982).
IX
POINT
McIlvoy, 629 S.W.2d
Newlon,
Bolder,
Shaw,
In
addition
Section 565.014.1
that we re-
mandates
Mercer,
we
affirmed twelve
it
view
death
where
is im-
sentence
or life
in which the choice
cases
posed.
provides:
565.014.3
Section
parole
imprisonment
possibility
without
sentence,
regard
With
the su-
*12
jury.
submitted to the
fifty years was
preme court shall determine:
(Mo.
Greathouse,
v.
leled that in the nothing means St. ty obviously tions to other inmates that abandon, starving, hope ye beat- “All long County jail. should set about a week Charles inscrip- of an inmate fitting and sexual abuse ing, burning would be who enter here” especially he and gates much smaller size than just as over the portals, tion for its age, experience vulnerable because Dante’s Hell. shows deficiency.
mental The evidence in the con- appellant slew his victim manner of an execu- prison
fines of a
tion, and this court finds that dispropor- is neither
tionate nor excessive. error, judgment
Finding no reversible hereby
should be and is affirmed. Missouri, Respondent, STATE RENDLEN, DONNELLY, J., and C. BARDGETT, WELLIVER, HIGGINS and BLAIR, Appellant. Walter Junior JJ., concur. *13 No. 62782. J., SEILER, separate in result in concurs opinion filed. Missouri, Supreme Court Execution date re-set for October 1982. En Banc. SEILER, Judge, concurring result. 31, 1982. Aug. While I doubt that the death does Denied Oct. Rehearing harm, good my personal more than it does important compul- views are not under previous
sion of the cases wherein this court
has I upheld penalty, concur present
the outcome of the case. ap-
Something should be said about
palling supervision lack of in the Charles St.
County jail brings light. which this case
One cannot read what to the vic- happened wondering
tim without how the abuse could gone unnoticed or undiscovered
sheriff, jail, who is law in of the charge deputies or his or
jailers. The abuse went on for over week Evidently there
prior killing. to the actual whatever exercised in supervision no St. County jail prison- over the
Charles
ers are free to run wild and do as who are
please with one another. Those jail look the
supposed charge to be designate trusty
other an inmate way
jailer, system deplorable which leads to
abuses. permitted
What to take disgrace. jail public is a County
St. Charles the state opinion speaks about principal the safe care
having responsibility