501, 511 (Mo.App. W.D.1996) (noting that the jury could have inferred deliberation from the length of time required to produce death by suffocation or from the length of time it took to prepare a chloroform-soaked rag). The jury could have inferred from the presence of Defendant’s fingerprint on the trunk that he was the person who bound and placed Victim in the trunk of her car. It could have inferred that the lighter fluid found in Victim’s car was the lighter fluid Defendant had borrowed a few days before Victim’s body was discovered. The jury could also have inferred that the crime was planned in advance from the presence of the standards manual (used to start the fire) and the gloves found in Victim’s and Defendant’s cars. See State v. Grubbs, 724 S.W.2d 494, 498 (Mo. banc 1987) (<HOLDING>). Proof that Defendant was present at the scene
holding that employer controlled the victims will at least in part by using his position as the victims employer holding that the crime victims compensation act which compensated innocent victims of criminal acts was an attempt to remedy that situation and therefore applied retroactively holding that jury may consider victims mental capacity in determining whether defendant acted with victims knowledge and consent holding that a jury could reasonably infer defendant and his brother engaged in victims murder with deliberation where victims hands and feet were bound expert testimony was that victims injuries were inflicted when he was alive defendants gloves were discarded in victims trailer and defendant and his brother burned the trailer in an attempt to conceal the evidence holding admissible testimony of the victims daughter regarding a telephone call from the defendant to the victim hours before the victims death and the victims emotions following the telephone call where defendant claimed accident