RENDLEN, Judge.
Appellant stands convicted of capital murder, § 565.001, RSMo 1978, by a jury which, in the punishment phase of trial, § 565.006, RSMo 1978, fixed the penalty at death, § 565.008, RSMo 1978, and judgment was rendered accordingly. Direct appeal to this Court lies in such cases for consideration of the punishment assessed, § 565.014, RSMo 1978, as well as the several claims of error. Art. V, § 3, Mo.Const.
For his assignments of error appellant asserts: (1) facial invalidity of the death penalty; (2) improper excuse for cause of three veniremen expressing an unwillingness to consider imposition of the death penalty; (3) prejudice in the verdict directing instruction which failed to require a finding of the mental state necessary for capital murder; (4) failure of the trial court to sua sponte control prosecutorial comment; (5) improper limitation of impeachment of a State’s witness; and (6) impermissible vagueness and misapplication of § 565.012.2(7), RSMo 1978, on which the punishment was predicated, rendering the sentence a nullity.
From the substantial evidence adduced supportive of the verdict the jury could reasonably have found the following: On [610]*610April 24,1978, at approximately 10:20 p. m., Mr. Mansfield Dave sent his wife and son home from the “Quick Shop” “convenience” store they operated as a family in Kinlock. About twenty minutes later, an alarm sounded alerting Mrs. Dave to possible trouble at the store and when she ran there, she found her husband on the floor dead or dying from two shotgun wounds in the upper body.
This steady flow of events that fateful April 24 led to Mansfield Dave’s murder.. Earlier in the day appellant brought a single shot 16 gauge shotgun to the home of Walter West, a friend of appellant for more than 10 years. At appellant’s request, West brought him a hacksaw which they used to saw off portions of the barrel and the stock. The shotgun so shortened measured about 22 inches and could be concealed beneath a short jacket or inserted barrel first in the waistband of a man’s trousers with a shirt or jacket over the stock. Leaving the home they walked along a back road to a liquor store, and on the way appellant, who had seven or eight shells in his pocket, test fired the gun into some weeds. During this time appellant suggested they rob Mr. Dave’s “conveniency” store because he wanted “some money”. Reaching the liquor store, appellant, who had concealed the gun in his heavy fur-trimmed jacket which extended to his mid-thigh, bought a six-pack of beer, and as they left, West flagged down a passing car driven by Franz Williams, another friend who had attended school with appellant through the seventh grade. The two men entered Williams’ car, and when they told him of the robbery plan, Williams agreed to join the scheme. With Williams driving, the trio went to Mr. Dave’s Quick Shop where West, apparently to size the situation, entered the store, bought a pack of cigarettes and returning to the car reported there were too many people present to carry out the robbery at that time. The men drove back to the liquor store and purchased another six-pack of beer, then continued cruising the neighborhood in Williams’ car.
At approximately 10:30 p. m., the three conspirators again drove to the victim’s store and found the customers had gone. Only Mr. Dave remained. Williams and appellant then entered the store while West, who remained in the car, drove to a place in front of the building to permit a view of the store’s interior. Williams went toward a soda case in the rear as appellant walked to the sales counter behind which Mr. Dave was standing. Above that counter, plexiglass panels formed a partial physical, though not a visual, screen for the back counter area. Appellant, stationed himself at a point where an opening occurred in the screen and there confronted Mr. Dave who after a moment’s conversation, turned his back apparently to get cigarettes from a rack. It was then that appellant drew the sawed-off shotgun concealed in his clothing and aimed at his victim. As Mr. Dave turned back toward the counter, appellant with a blast from the shotgun knocked him to the floor. Appellant then deliberately broke open the single action gun, extracted the spent shell, reloaded1 and peering over the counter with Williams, who had by then come to the front of the store, once more hand cocked the gun, took aim and again shot Mr. Dave. He again broke open the gun, extracted the second spent shell and followed Williams from the store. Once outside the two ran in different directions but were shortly picked up by West in the car and as appellant reentered the car he stated that he had to “burn” (kill) Mr. Dave. Though the robbery plan failed, as no money was taken from the store, the murder succeeded when Mr. Dave died from the wounds, one in the upper left chest and the other in the upper left shoulder.
After Mrs. Dave heard the alarm2 and was running to the store, she saw Williams [611]*611and noted he was not carrying an object of any kind, which is corroborative of the testimony that appellant (not Williams) had the gun and did the killing. The police were promptly summoned to the scene and in their investigation found two spent 16 gauge shotgun shells and, sitting on the counter, a cold bottle of Nehi orange soda bearing William’s fingerprints. This too corroborates the testimony that Williams had gone to the rear of the store to get the soft drink from the case while appellant confronted and shot Mr. Dave at the counter near the front. The night after the homicide, appellant delivered the shotgun to West’s home where West applied some tape on the shortened stock which had loosened, and later .asked his cousin, Kevin Hughes, to take the gun from the house. Hughes did so, but apparently apprehensive of the situation, delivered the gun to Chief Patton of the Kinlock Police and was paid $24. Defense counsel characterized Hughes to the jury as the “little snitch.”
The police in their later investigation found the sawed-off portions of the barrel and stock at West’s house and determined the shotgun was the weapon which had fired the two spent cartridges found at the murder scene.
Appellant was at the time of the murder a 23 year old black man, with an 11th grade education. He had four convictions of burglary second degree, three convictions of stealing and one conviction of larceny. Though, the record is unclear how much total time was imposed his sentences totaled at least 12 years and perhaps more. Appellant had served part of this time in the penitentiary. In an initial statement to the police, he admitted his presence at the scene but contended he had stayed in the car while West and Williams went inside the store. He later made a videotaped statement and changed his story, admitting that Williams and indeed he had entered the store but asserted that Williams did the shooting while he, appellant, went to the soda case at the rear of the store. In this videotaped statement he also admitted he knew the purpose of their entering the store was to carry out a “heist” (robbery) and in this statement he also asserted that Franz Williams while standing near the car before entering the store stated that “I [Franz Williams] might have to shoot him [Mr. Dave] because he knows me”. Thus the possibility of killing Mr. Dave to eliminate any witness was implicitly a part of the plan. In this connection it is important to note that appellant knew the “place”, that he had been in the store on prior occasions and was familiar with the store and some of the people who worked there. He knew the store was close by and that the men could “walk” to it. Easy accessibility appears to have been a consideration in choosing that store to rob, all of which suggests that destroying the witness was a motive for the killing. At trial, again changing his story, appellant stated he was not present at the scene of the crime.
I.
Appellant contends that the death penalty authorized by § 565.008, RSMo 1978, is unconstitutional under the United States and Missouri Constitutions. When considering such “statutory validity” challenges we are mindful that our legislature’s enactments generally enjoy a presumption of constitutionality and will be declared void only when manifestly infringing a constitutional provision. State v. Hamey, 168 Mo. 167, 67 S.W. 620, 628 (Mo. banc 1902). See also, State v. Mitchell, 563 S.W.2d 18, 26 (Mo. banc 1978). In any determination as to constitutionality of legislatively prescribed punishment, validity is presumed and those seeking invalidation are heavily [612]*612burdened to demonstrate it as barberous or excessive. State v. Higgins, 592 S.W.2d 151, 155 (Mo. banc 1979), app. dismissed, 446 U.S. 902, 100 S.Ct. 1825, 64 L.Ed.2d 254 (1980). Attentive to these principles we examine appellant’s contentions. First: that the death penalty violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment and the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment. This assertion runs contrary to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 169, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2923, 49 L.Ed.2d 859, 872 (1976); Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 247, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 2964, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976); Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 268, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 2954, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976). The Court in Gregg reviewing the Georgia statutes’ death sentence provisions found them constitutional. The analysis chere is appropriate in this challenge tr Missouri’s statute which in essential part tracks that of Georgia leaving little doubt that our death sentence provisions, properly imposed, are sound under the Federal Constitution and we so hold.
Second: Appellant, without supporting authority, suggests the death penalty is violative of the cruel and unusual punishment provision of Art. I, § 21, and due process provision of Art. I, § 10, of the Missouri Constitution. We declared § 565.-008, RSMo 1978, valid against such attack under Art. I, § 21, in State ex rel. Westfall v. Mason, 594 S.W.2d 908, 916-17 (Mo. banc 1980), vacated on other grounds, Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430, 101 S.Ct. 1852, 68 L.Ed.2d 270 (1981). In so deciding we refused to extend the reach of Art. I, § 21 as requested, and arrogate to ourselves a policy decision properly within the legislative province. Similarly we now refuse to stretch the meaning of Art. I, § 10 to invalidate the death penalty, beyond the limits of the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. More recently in State v. Mercer, 618 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 432, 70 L.Ed.2d 240, this Court reviewed the application of Missouri’s capital murder statutes and affirming the conviction and death sentence there imposed, necessarily accepted the facial constitutionality of the death penalty provisions.
Third: Appellant maintains that the death penalty is prohibited by the Missouri Constitution, Art. I, § 2, which provides:
That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design. (Emphasis ours).
This novel proposal requires a strained construction of that section contrary to its obvious intendment. Without question the State of Missouri is not prohibited by this section from imposing the death penalty on depraved murderers. Instead the State is charged with conferring “security” for the “life” and “happiness” of its citizens generally. Such is the thrust of the section and if “government” fails in these things (e.g. providing a deterrent to murder) and does not “confer this security, it fails in its chief design.” Further, the strained construction here proposed flies in the face of the following related constitutional provisions by which the framers of our Constitution demonstratively intended the death penalty could and would be imposed in appropriate cases. Art. I, § 10: “. . . no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” (Emphasis ours). Art. I, § 19: “That no person shall be compelled to testify against himself in a criminal cause, nor shall any person be put again in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offense, after being once acquitted by a jury; ...” (Emphasis ours). Art. I, § 20: “. . . all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses, when the proof is evident or the presumption great.” (Emphasis ours).
[613]*613In light of the clear intent of Missouri’s Constitution and the extraordinary increase of murder, accompanied all too frequently by incidents of cold brutality exceeding the pale of a civilized people, we hold that § 565.008, RSMo 1978, violates neither Sections 2, 10 or 21 of Art. I of the Missouri Constitution.
II.
We turn now to appellant’s contention that the trial court committed plain error by its Instruction No. 9. This allegation of error was not raised by objection at trial nor preserved for review in appellant’s motion for new trial. It is raised for the first time in appellant’s brief and will be reviewed for plain error under Rule 29.12. In submitting the issue of appellant’s guilt of capital murder as an accessory, the trial court gave, among others, the following instructions:
INSTRUCTION NO. 5 — MAI-CR 2.10
All persons are guilty who knowingly act together with the common purpose of committing an offense, or who knowingly and intentionally aid or encourage another in committing it, and whatever one does in furtherance of the offense is the act of each of them.
The presence of a person at or near the scene of an offense at the time it was committed is alone not sufficient to make him responsible therefor, although his presence may be considered together with all of the evidence in determining his guilt or innocence.
INSTRUCTION NO. 8 — MAI-CR2d 2.14
In this case you will be instructed that you may find the defendant either not guilty of any offense or guilty of either capital murder, murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree or manslaughter. In that connection you are instructed that when two or more persons are criminally responsible for an offense which is divided into degrees, each such person is guilty of that degree which is compatible with that state of mind with which he acted in committing
the offense and compatible with his own accountability for any aggravating or mitigating fact or circumstance.
INSTRUCTION NO. 9 — MAI-CR2d 15.02, MODIFIED BY MAI-CR 2.12
If you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that on or about April 24, 1978, in the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, the defendant or another caused the death of Mansfield Dave by shooting him, and
Second, that the defendant or another intended to take the life of Mansfield Dave, and
Third, that the defendant or another knew that they were practically certain to cause the death of Mansfield Dave, and
Fourth, that the defendant or another considered taking the life of Mansfield Dave and reflected upon this matter coolly and fully before doing so, and Fifth, that the defendant acted either alone or knowingly and with common purpose together with another in the conduct referred to in the above paragraphs, then you will find the defendant guilty of capital murder.
However, if you do not find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of that offense.
Appellant charges plain error in the form of Instruction No. 9. The murder occurred April 24, 1978, and at that time the statute in effect was § 565.001, RSMo 1978, proscribing certain acts as capital murder. In connection with the capital murder statute instruction MAI — CR2d 15.02 was promulgated for trials of homicides occurring after May 25, 1977. Also in effect at the time of the murder was § 556.170, RSMo 1969, delineating responsibilities of accessories to murder and prescribing the punishment for their conduct. MAI — CR 2.12 was promulgated as its accompanying instruction. In sum, these statutes and [614]*614their corollary instructions were those in vogue for crimes committed on April 24, 1978, the time of the murder. See, State v. Lute, 608 S.W.2d 381, 383 (Mo. banc 1980). This Court in Lute, citing State ex rel. Peach v. Bloom, 576 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Mo. banc 1979), stated, “. . . the ‘provisions of law existing prior to the new criminal code [are] applicable to all offenses committed prior to January 1, 1979.’ ” Here the trial court, consistent with the Lute rule applied the statutes and employed the instructions prescribed for use in criminal cases effective at the time of the murder. Appellant, however, complains that because the trial occurred after January 1, 1979, the effective date of the new Criminal Code, the new accessory statute, § 562.041 and the corresponding approved instruction for that section, i.e., MAI-CR2d 2.12, should have been submitted. This contention is not well taken and it would have been error to have done as appellant now urges. See, State v. Lute, supra.
Appellant contends Instruction No. 9 fails to apprise the jury of the elements of capital murder found in § 565.001, RSMo 1978. That section defines capital murder as “Any person who unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, deliberately, and with premeditation kills or causes the killing of another human being is guilty of the offense of capital murder.” While Instruction No. 9 [MAI — CR2d 15.02, MAI-CR 2.12] does not utilize the precise statutory words, it nevertheless employs terms which have been determined as proper substitutes by our courts. Indeed the terms utilized in Instruction No. 9 are preferable for instructional purposes in that they more clearly set forth the mental state and other aspects of the crime necessary for conviction of capital murder. In particular, appellant complains the term “unlawfully” is not employed in Instruction No. 9. This contention misses the point and is without merit. The question of whether the homicide is lawful or unlawful is in the first instance a question of law to be decided by the court at the close of the evidence when determining whether a submissible case has been made. At that point there was not a scintilla of evidence suggesting the killing was “lawful” or justifiable [which would have required modifying 15.02 (No. 9) by one of the forms set forth at 2.40 et seq.] or excusable [which would have required modifying 15.02 by 2.28]. Hence, there is no requirement that the term “unlawfully” or an equivalent be employed in this instance.
The statutory elements “willfully” and “knowingly” are adequately reflected in the second and third paragraphs of Instruction No. 9 which require a finding that defendant intended to take the life and knew he was practically certain to cause death. State v. Thomas, 595 S.W.2d 325, 328 (Mo.App.1980).
The element “deliberately” is appropriately set forth in the fourth paragraph of Instruction No. 9 which mandates that defendant coolly and fully reflected on this act. See, State v. Turner, 623 S.W.2d 4, 7 (Mo. banc 1981); State v. Strickland, 609 S.W.2d 392, 394 (Mo. banc 1980). The element of premeditation is defined in Missouri as thought beforehand for any length of time however short. State v. Turner, supra at 7. The equivalent term “considered” in No. 9 supplies the requirement of premeditation prescribed in the statute. Accordingly we hold that Instruction No. 9 correctly requires the finding of the statutory elements of capital murder.
Appellant next contends the instructions given were fatally defective in that they did not require a finding of premeditation in appellant, and complains of the phrase “defendant or another” used in each paragraph in Instruction No. 9. This phrase is specifically provided by Instruction MAI-CR 2.12 and Notes on Use when there is evidence of accessory liability, and the mode of melding 2.12 in the structure of 15.02, utilized here, is in the form prescribed. An instruction thus in the format of MAI-CR will not be deemed error. State v. Easton, 577 S.W.2d 953, 958 (Mo.App.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 863, 100 S.Ct. 131, 62 L.Ed.2d 85; State v. Champion, 560 S.W.2d 903, 905-06 (Mo.App.1978). Further, according to Missouri law, premed[615]*615itation may be found in another and imputed to defendant as contemplated by the language of Instruction No. 9. That language when read with the general Instructions No. 5 and No. 8, requires that appellant manifest the requisite intent for perpetration of the offense. It suffices if defendant “knowingly acted in concert with another for the common purpose of committing the offense, or knowingly and intentionally aided or encouraged the other in committing the offense.” State v. Turner, 623 S.W.2d 4, 8 (Mo. banc 1981); State v. Strickland, 609 S.W.2d 392, 395 (Mo. banc 1980).3
Appellant next urges that for a conviction under § 565.001, RSMo 1978, the accused must be found to have premeditated, and the instructions fails in this regard. Missouri has abolished the distinctions between principals in the first degree and accessories. State v. Lute, 608 S.W.2d 381, 383-84 (Mo. banc 1980); State v. Easton, 577 S.W.2d 953, 957 (Mo.App.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 863, 100 S.Ct. 131, 62 L.Ed.2d 85. Under § 556.170, RSMo 1969, effective at the time of the murder in question, one may be liable as principal by aiding and abetting another. MAI-CR 2.10 (Instruction No. 5) and 2.12 (Instruction No. 9) reflect this tenet by imposing guilt on one found to be an accessory to the same degree that guilt is imposed upon a principal.4 Contrary to appellant’s assertions, Instructions No. 9 and No. 5 did not permit the jury to find appellant guilty of capital murder solely on the basis that “another” possessed the necessary mental state for capital murder. These instructions correctly required that appellant be found (1) to have manifested the requisite intent and did the killing or (2) that he knowingly and with a common purpose aided one who killed with the requisite intent for capital murder. See, State v. Turner, 623 S.W.2d 4, 8 (Mo. banc 1981); State v. Grebe, 461 5.W.2d 265 (Mo.1970).
Paragraph “Fifth” of Instruction No. 9 contains the essence of this proposition which is amplified and made abundantly clear by the provisions of the first paragraph of Instruction No. 5 and Instruction No. 8. We find no error, a fortiori no plain error, in the given instructions.
III.
It is next asserted that in excusing three prospective jurors the trial court violated the standards of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). There it was held error to excuse veniremen voicing general objections to the death penalty. In its reiteration of the Witherspoon rule the Court in Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123, 97 S.Ct. 399, 400, 50 L.Ed.2d 339, 341 (1976), stated: “Unless a venireman is ‘irrevocably committed, before the trial has begun, to vote against the penalty of death regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings’ ... he cannot be excluded.. .. ” Here the three excused fall into the class properly excluded. Venire-woman Daily was asked by the prosecutor: “[I]f after you were selected as a juror in this case, and you heard all of the evidence and deliberated and found the defendant guilty of capital murder.. .. [the concluding phrase was restated after objection by the defense] can you consider both sentences in arriving at your verdict — which are the death penalty and the life imprison[616]*616ment without parole for fifty years?” Mrs. Daily answered “no”. Venirewoman Lang responded negatively to a very similar question propounded by the trial judge. Venire-woman Marshall was asked by the defense, in a question addressed to all the remaining venire persons, “[I]s there anyone that should Mr. Newlon be convicted of capital murder . . . who couldn’t consider, . . . the penalty of imprisonment as well as the death penalty?” She replied, “I would not consider the death penalty.” The response of each was unambiguous and unmistakably clear. The administration of justice requires jurors who will follow and not ignore the law. Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980); State v. Mercer, 618 S.W.2d 1, 6-7, (Mo. banc 1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 432, 70 L.Ed.2d 240. Appellant’s claim of error is without merit.
IV.
Appellant would fault the trial court for what he contends is plain error5 in failing to sua sponte declare a mistrial following remarks of the prosecutor in argument during the punishment phase of trial.6 When measuring this contention several familiar principles bear reprise. Broad discretion rests with the trial court in the control of closing argument, with wide latitute accorded counsel in their summations. State v. Wood, 596 S.W.2d 394, 403 (Mo. banc 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 876, 101 S.Ct. 221, 66 L.Ed.2d 98; State v. Lans-ford, 594 S.W.2d 617, 622 (Mo. banc 1980); State v. Murphy, 592 S.W.2d 727, 732-33 (Mo. banc 1979). A conviction will be reversed for improper argument only if it is established the complained of comments had a decisive effect on the jury’s determination. Murphy, id. Indeed, relief should be rarely granted on assertions of plain error as to closing argument, for where no objection was lodged, trial strategy is an important consideration and such assertions are generally denied without explication. State v. Bryant, 548 S.W.2d 209, 211 (Mo.App.1977). This because the absence of objection, request for admonishment to disregard, or for other relief narrows the trial court’s options, requiring uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of the risk of error by such intervention.
Nevertheless, appellant maintains the trial court abused its discretion by not volun7 tarily interrupting comments of the prosecutor’s during argument, grouped here in three categories.
First, appellant alleges the prosecutor by these comments sought to enlarge the crime by appearing to have special knowledge outside the record.7
Now, when I said initially, that this was a difficult thing for me — I’ve been a prosecutor for ten years and I’ve never asked a jury for a death penalty, but I can tell you in all candor, I’ve never seen a man who deserved it more than Ray-field Newlon. By returning your verdict in this case, — and you people found him guilty of capital murder — that either means that you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he pulled the trigger, or that he had the frame of mind that’s consistent with pulling the trigger, and I submit to you, that Rayfield Newlon did pull the trigger, and didn’t pull it once, but pulled it twice — executed an innocent man in cold blood.
So where do you go from there? I say to you that I never saw a man who deserved it more and I say that to you in complete sincerity, and it’s my job, as I see it, to tell you that.
It is asserted these statements breach the rule that a prosecutor may not express an opinion implying awareness of facts not available to the jury. State v. [617]*617Moore, 428 S.W.2d 563, 565 (Mo.1968); State v. Hart, 292 Mo. 74, 237 S.W. 473, 480-81 (1922). However, balanced against this rule is the proposition that the prosecutor may state his conclusion if it is fairly drawn from the evidence, and his inferences need not seem necessarily warranted. State v. Jackson, 499 S.W.2d 467, 471 (Mo. 1973); State v. Jones, 491 S.W.2d 271, 273 (Mo.1973); State v. Moore, supra; State v. Hart, supra, State v. Haynes, 528 S.W.2d 11, 13 (Mo.App.1975). Further, prosecutorial comment referring to facts not before the jury may be permissible, so long as it does not imply special knowledge of evidence pointing to defendant’s guilt, State v. Moore, supra; see, State v. McKinney, 475 S.W.2d 51, 55 (Mo.1971); State v. Coleman, 524 S.W.2d 27, 33 (Mo.App.1975), and indeed the prosecutor may indicate a belief of guilt drawn directly from the State’s evidence. State v. Jackson, supra at 471. Here the question of guilt had been settled. Only questions of aggravation and mitigation going to the issue of punishment remained. The jury had been confronted with substantial evidence pointing to the callous nature of the crime and depravity of the murderer. The record demonstrated a cold-blooded execution of an innocent man deserving of better, to avoid identification and/or for the pleasure of killing, linked with a total lack of remorse for the crime or sympathy for the victim. The statements of the prosecutor were directed to the allegation of depravity, a condition which could arguably be inferred from the evidence. A similar remark, “If ever I heard a better case made of burglary second . . .,” was deemed permissible in Haynes. Id. at 13. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court, and necessarily no manifest injustice in not sua sponte declaring a mistrial because of such statements.
The second group of comments now challenged, include the following:
I submit to you that he deserves to die. He doesn’t deserve to breathe the same air that Mrs. Dave breathes. She’s a widow with a son, and he’s a son with no father. He doesn’t deserve to breathe the same air.
Before you can take Rayfield Newlons’ [sic] life, you have to give him a lawyer and a fair trial — he’s entitled to that, and he got an excellent lawyer and a fair trial and twelve fair citizens. Now, if you say he deserves the death penalty, under the law, Judge Ruddy must review it and if he agrees, then his decision is reviewed by the Supreme Court — which is only appropriate and fair under the circumstances. But, did Mansfield Dave have his day in Court? If Rayfield Newlon is killed he’ll know his appointed hour and have an opportunity to get his soul straightened out, and in a condition to meet his Maker. I’m not saying this lightly, or for dramatic effects — not at all. How do we know if Mr. Dave was prepared to meet his Maker, or what condition his soul was in before he was blown away. Do you think he he gives a damn ? He didn’t care ....
I’m telling you, that Rayfield Newlon deserves to die, not only for what he did, but I think it’s absolutely critical to say to him and others like him, . . . that you have got to stop killing. You’ve got to stop robbing, and if you do this in St. Louis County you’re going to pay the price. You people have got the opportunity here to send out this message, and to send it out all over St. Louis County— you’re [sic] own community — and Kinlock is a part of your community — this could have happened in Ladue, Lemay, Floris-sant, or Ferguson — these kinds of crimes happen every day and go on happening, and you’ve got the opportunity to say that Rayfield Newlon’s in this area, if you’re going to do your killing and keep on doing it — don’t do it in our community, because if you do, we’re going to kill you because we got the right to do it; it’s fair and appropriate and it’s right — not cruel and not unusual punishment — it’s right. Did Mr. Newlon show any remorse in the videotape? No. Did he show any remorse on the witness stand? No. Did [618]*618he show any reaction or emotion when the verdict was returned last night? You look at him? No. He knew what was coming; he knew that what he did would send him to prison — that’s no big deal— he’s been there before, and what assurances do you have that he’ll be there fifty years? The legislature could change the law. All it says is no parole. It doesn’t say it can’t be commuted. There’s no assurance of that at all. The law could be changed, but at least with death there is some assurance he won’t commit any more crimes and the message is loud and clear, and perhaps others will think twice before they commit a robbery and take a life just for money. What I’m saying to you is if you come back with a life sentence without him being eligible for parole for fifty years — that that won’t get any reaction, and that’s what he’s expecting you to come back with — that’s no big deal, going to prison, but maybe you’ll get his attention if you come back with . . . “we sentence you to death.”
. . . the law gives you two alternatives. But, if somebody is guilty of capital murder the ultimate crime, why should they get anything other than death?
You know — when I talk about sending out a message — well, I know the Charles Mansons wouldn’t hear the message, or the Richard Specks or the “sons of Sam” —those kinds of people wouldn’t hear it because those people are insane — legally responsible for what they did, but they wouldn’t get this kind of message, and in the same — a truer fashion, he’s not insane. This was simply a business venture — you know, he didn’t hear any strange voices speaking to him, he just wanted some money, and all that stood between him and the money, was Mansfield Dave, and he eliminated — executed him.
If Rayfield was going to harm your child, would you kill him? Would you have prevented this killing if you’d been in the Conveniency store with a gun, and you could have saved Mr. Dave’s life? Would you have killed Rayfield? I think you would have — at least, I hope you would have had the courage to do either one of those. If you think you would have, kill him now. Kill him now. Once again, I hope you have the courage to do that, because it’s tough.
I really don’t have much more to say, but I hope to impress upon you that this is truly a war — I mean, a “street war” and it’s justifiable to kill in a war. You know there are enemies — there’s no question about it, Rayfield and others like him are the enemy and it’s still going to go on, and on, and on, unless you citizens of St. Louis County say it’s not going to go on, and we may have to catch you and convict you, but when we do, we’re going to execute you, and at least those people won’t go and do it.
Appellant maintains the court erred in failing to sua sponte prevent these remarks or to declare a mistrial because they improperly personalized the crime, causing the jury to fear appellant, applied personal epithets to appellant, and argued for the death penalty based on an anticipation of appellant’s future conduct. The record however, warrants conclusions other than those urged by appellant. See, State v. Hoskins, 569 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Mo.App.1978); State v. Coleman, 524 S.W.2d 27, 32 (Mo.App.1975). A review of the prosecutor’s entire argument reveals a clear intent to impress upon the jury the serious nature of the murder as part of a permissible plea for strict law enforcement. We must not lose sight of the problem then before the court and jury. The prosecutor was seeking the death penalty which in his view was justified from the evidence and through analogy sought to demonstrate the aptness of the penalty as a deterrent. In this setting a prosecutor may urge imposition of a severe sentence as a signal to deter future crimes in a community. State v. Wright, 515 S.W.2d 421, 432 (Mo. banc 1974); State v. Laster, 365 Mo. 1076, 293 S.W.2d 300, 306 (Mo. banc 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 936, [619]*61977 S.Ct. 237, 1 L.Ed.2d 167; State v. Cole, 588 S.W.2d 94, 100 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Bryant, 548 S.W.2d 209, 212 (Mo.App.1977). Further, under evidence in this record it was not improper for the prosecutor to refer to the prevalence of crime as a “street war” as it appears from the evidence or as a matter of common knowledge, State v. Hart, 292 Mo. 74, 237 S.W. 473, 481 (Mo.1922), and to argue that it would be a reflection upon them to fail to convict under the evidence presented. The prosecutor’s reference to the victim’s family was a legitimate comparison of defendant to the victim, demonstrative of the inutile nature of the slaying and that the senseless cruelty of this act revealed a depravity justifying the death penalty as a deterrent to such acts. See, State v. Jackson, 499 S.W.2d 467, 471 (Mo.1973); State v. Swenson, 551 S.W.2d 917, 920 (Mo.App.1977). Appellant’s assertion that the prosecutor categorized him with certain notorious killers misconstrues the argument in this regard. See, State v. Hoskins, 569 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Mo.App.1978); State v. Coleman, 524 S.W.2d 27, 32 (Mo.App.1975). Taking the remark in context, it appears the prosecutor was urging that imposition of the death penalty in a case such as this would serve as a better deterrent than it would to one of the insane mass murderers mentioned. The other remarks argued as having impermissi-bly personalized the crime, or caused the jury to fear appellant and urged death to prevent future crime by appellant, were coupled with comments generalizing the deterrent effect to others of a strict sentence in this case. The thrust of the contested statements was a plea for stricter law enforcement as a deterrent to crime. State v. Swenson, 551 S.W.2d 9l7, 920 (Mo.App.1977). It has long been recognized that the prosecutor is permitted to argue such propositions as the prevalence of crime in the community, the personal safety of its inhabitants, and the jury’s duty to uphold the law as well as inferences from its failure to convict, and such pleas may call upon common experience. State v. Rodriguez, 484 S.W.2d 203, 207 (Mo.1972); State v. Jackson, 477 S.W.2d 47, 53 (Mo.1972); State v.
McKinney, 475 S.W.2d 51, 55 (Mo.1971); State v. Burnett, 429 S.W.2d 239, 246 (Mo.1968); and State v. Brauch, 529 S.W.2d 926, 931 (Mo.App.1975).
Appellant’s final challenge centers on the following comment:
Did Mr. Newlon show any remorse in the videotape? No. Did he show any remorse on the witness stand? No. Did he show any reaction or emotion when the verdict was returned last night? You look at him? No. He knew what was coming; he knew that what he did would send him to prison — that’s no big deal— he’s been there before, and what assurances do you have that he’ll be there fifty years? The legislature could change the law. All it says is no parole. It doesn’t say it can’t be commuted. There’s no assurance of that at all. The law could be changed, but at least with death there is some assurance he won’t commit any more crimes and the message is loud and clear, and perhaps others will think twice before they commit a robbery and take a life just for money. What I’m saying to you is if you come back with a life sentence without him being eligible for parole for fifty years — that that won’t get any reaction, and that’s what he’s expecting you to come back with — that’s no big deal, going to prison, but maybe you’ll get his attention if you come back with .. . “we sentence you to death.”
He relies on State v. Mobley, 369 S.W.2d 576, 580-81 (Mo.1963), for the proposition that the State may not argue a defendant’s criminal record as a reflection of his character and a basis for conviction, nor to prevent future criminal acts by him. Mobley, however, is inapposite. The argument there was in a unitary proceeding for determination of guilt on a burglary charge. Here testimony of appellant’s prior criminal convictions had entered the case as impeaching evidence during his testimony in the guilt phase. Such evidence was available for consideration during the pre-sentence (punishment phase) hearing (§ 565.006.2) and was relevant to the issue of depravity, revealing in part appellant’s background to better assess the crime, the [620]*620then convicted criminal and the appropriate punishment. It was a permissible subject for argument. The contention is denied.8
V.
It is next contended that the trial court erred in refusing to allow testimony of a defense witness to impeach William West’s reputation. A single question was posed to defense witness Parker: “Does he [West] have a reputation in Kin-lock for truth and veracity?” Objection was sustained and no offer of proof nor further inquiry followed. This allegation of error, not included in appellant’s motion for new trial, will be examined for plain error under Rule 29.12. While testimonial evidence may be introduced to impeach a witness’s reputation for truth and veracity in the community, State v. Woods, 428 S.W.2d 521, 523 (Mo.1968); State v. Cross, 343 S.W.2d 20, 23 (Mo.1961), the trial court has wide discretion as to the admission of such evidence. State v. Miles, 253 Mo. 427, 161 S.W. 766, 769 (Mo.1913). West’s credibility had been repeatedly attacked throughout cross-examination during which prior felony convictions, as well as the voluminous record of his prior inconsistent statements, were brought to the jury’s attention. West admitted and it was stipulated he had been convicted of burglary second degree and stealing, as well as flourishing (a deadly weapon), for which he received concurrent three year sentences. These sentences were imposed only two days before he had been allowed to plead guilty to murder in the second degree for his part in the Mansfield Dave killing. Though he had not been sentenced, the State had agreed to recommend ten years. This told the jury West had been convicted of crimes involving dishonesty (burglary and stealing) and crimes of violence (the murder of Mr. Dave), and had a profound interest (the plea bargain for second degree murder) motivating his testimony favorable to the State. Evidence of this “deal” in return for his testimony was before the jury. Clearly, additional evidence as to his general reputation could have been of marginal value as impeachment.9 Additionally, it is difficult to fault the court when at the time in question it requested that defense counsel provide some “authority” for allowing an answer to the question. While it is not required that such authority be supplied, counsel made neither offer of proof nor suggestion to assist the court. No relief was requested. Indeed the matter was pursued no further during trial nor raised in the motion for new trial. It cannot be said the trial court is guilty of reversible error much less manifest injustice.
VI.
This Court reviews the sentence in capital murder cases when the death penalty is [621]*621imposed, § 565.014.1, and determines whether the sentence was assessed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor, § 565.014.3(1), and whether the evidence supports the jury’s finding of statutory aggravating circumstances enumerated in § 565.012. § 565.-014.3(2). Here the record reveals that the death sentence fixed by the jury and imposed by the court was not the result of passion, prejudice or any arbitrary factor. At the first phase of the bifurcated proceeding mandated by § 565.006, the jury returned a verdict finding appellant guilty of capital murder. In the presentence hearing that followed, neither party presented additional evidence but both argued extensively the issue of punishment. The jury was instructed on two aggravating circumstances: (1) whether the defendant murdered Mansfield Dave for the purpose of receiving money or any other thing of monetary value, § 565.012.2(4); (2) whether the murder of Mansfield Dave involved depravity of mind and that as a result thereof it was outrageously or wantonly horrible or inhuman, § 565.012.2(7). The court also instructed the jury on these mitigating circumstances: (1) whether the defendant was an accomplice in the murder of Mansfield Dave and whether his participation was relatively minor, § 565.012.3(4); (2) whether defendant acted under extreme duress or substantial domination of another person, § 565.012.3(5); (3) the age of the defendant at the time of the offense, § 565.012.3(7). The jury found beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the second submitted aggravating circumstance and the evidence supports the jury’s findings.
Appellant contends that § 565.012.-2(7) is facially unconstitutional by reason of its vagueness and is violative of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 10 of the Missouri Constitution. Specifically, appellant argues the phrase “depravity of mind” is impermissibly vague. However, the language of the statute and its correlative instruction are the same in all essentials to that of the seventh aggravating circumstance of the Georgia death statute. Georgia Code Annotated § 27— 2534.1(b)(7). The United States has on at least two occasions examined the Georgia death penalty statute and its aggravating circumstance No. 7 and concluded the statute is facially valid. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980). As noted above, one who attacks the constitutionality of a statute bears a heavy burden which appellant has not carried. Appellant notes that during their deliberations the jury requested a definition of the phrase “depravity of mind” and this request was denied by the court. He argues this demonstrates the facial invalidity. As with any attempt to label a mental state (e.g., intent, deliberation, reasonable doubt) there can be no precise objective definition for its terms. So it is with the phrase “depravity of mind”. While appellant would quarrel with the lack of further definition of terms, such does not prohibit the legislature from enacting criminal penalties graduated according to an offender’s mental state. Hence, when the statute employs such words of common speech, it is the responsibility of the jury to determine if the offender acted in a manner denoting depravity of mind. In addition to the previously mentioned safeguards providing the process due found in the mandatory review provisions, § 565.014, we must review whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases considering both the crime and the appellant, which eliminates as nearly as possible capricious imposition of the death penalty. We find § 565.012.2(7), RSMo 1978, facially valid under the Missouri Constitution.
Citing Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980), appellant next contends the evidence was insufficient to support a conclusion that his conduct in committing “the murder of Mansfield Dave involved depravity of mind and that as a result thereof it was outrageously or wantonly horrible or inhuman.” God-frey, however, rests on its unique facts. There, it was conceded defendant had not [622]*622tortured the victims nor committed an aggravated battery' upon them. Yet, the death sentence rested on the jury’s finding that Godfrey’s actions had been “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that [they] involved .. . depravity of mind. . . . ” The Court rejected such conclusion as unconstitutional, noting several facts: Godfrey’s victims were family members who had caused him “extreme emotional trauma”; that in an emotional state, he had killed them instantaneously; shortly after the killing Godfrey acknowledged involvement and the heinous nature of his crime and further, Godfrey had no criminal record. On these facts Godfrey’s actions were deemed not to reflect “a consciousness materially more ‘depraved’ than that of any other person guilty of murder.”
In the case sub judice the State established that Newlon’s conduct was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman. Newlon planned the robbery making elaborate preparations for the scheme. He enlisted the help of a willing accomplice, West and later a second accomplice, Williams. He also provided a 16 gauge shotgun, and sawed portions from the barrel and stock to facilitate its concealment and provide an especially dangerous short range weapon. He test fired the gun and selected for robbery a nearby convenience store where he knew its operators. Before entering the store Williams, one of the conspirators, announced he would probably have to kill Mr. Dave as Mr. Dave knew him. Hence, Newlon and Williams entered the store with the very real probability of murder in mind. They waited until all possible witnesses had left the store except the intended victim, Mansfield Dave. When they entered, Franz Williams, serving as a decoy, went to the soda case at the rear and New-lon approached Mr. Dave. When Mansfield Dave’s back was turned, Newlon drew and hand cocked the gun, and when Mansfield Dave faced around, Newlon, without warning or provocation,, shot him in the torso with the sawed off shotgun. Though the victim was knocked to the floor, Newlon cold-bloodedly broke open the single action shotgun, extracted the spent shell, inserted a fresh shell, closed the gun, reclosed and recocked the gun, and leaning over the counter where the victim had fallen, shot Mansfield Dave again as he lay bleeding on the floor. Once more, Newlon opened the gun and extracted the second shell, apparently to insert a third shell, however, the alarm sounded, causing him to run from the store. The second extraction indicated Mansfield Dave might have suffered a third blast from the shotgun, but for the alarm, for why else would Newlon have broken open the gun a second time and extracted the second shell except in preparation for a third shot. This was a senseless killing, a killing for killing’s sake. Appellant argues there was no torture involved and thus a reversal of the death sentence is required under Godfrey, supra. However, it should be pointed out that if Mr. Dave was dead after the initial shot, the second blast, deliberately performed in the manner described, would have served to mutilate the corpse, a macabre purpose demonstrating depravity. If, on the other hand, Mansfield Dave was still alive, the second shot was to insure the killing, and the first blast from this sawed off shotgun must have inflicted extreme suffering. The record supports the finding of depravity. See, Turner v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 221 Va. 513, 273 S.E.2d 36 (1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1011, 101 S.Ct. 2347, 68 L.Ed.2d 863 (1981). There the murderer Willie Lloyd Turner entered a jewelry store with intent to rob. He “displayed a sawed-off shotgun previously concealed . . . and demanded money and jewelry.” Id. 273 S.E.2d at 39. While the proprietor and an employee complied with the robbery demand by placing money and jewelry in a bag, a silent alarm was sounded alerting the police department. Two other parties entered the store not knowing a robbery was in progress. They too were detained by Turner. Discovering that Smith, the victim, had activated the alarm, Turner demanded it be turned off and Smith complied. Learning that one of the newcomers in the store, Alan Bain, was a policeman, Turner stated that if he saw or heard any additional police, he was going to [623]*623start killing those in the store. About that time, hearing a siren, Turner, without warning, shot Smith in the head with a revolver taken from Bain. Apparently angered or aggravated by the triggering of the silent alarm and the arrival of the police, Turner leaned over the counter and in rapid succession fired two more rounds into Smith’s chest. Turner, like appellant here, had a record of prior felony convictions. The jury found his acts outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman and that the conduct resulted from the perpetrator’s depravity of mind, justifying imposition of the death penalty. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed. The facts in Turner are strikingly similar to those before us. Indeed, the killing in Turner was possibly more understandable because of the emotion or sense of aggravation generated by the alarm and the siren heralding the arrival of the police. The pertinent portions of the Virginia statutes are similar in all essentials to ours and the decision in Turner provides persuasive precedent here.
The contentions of legal error have been denied for the reasons heretofore enumerated in this opinion. The evidence from the record substantiates the verdict. Section 565.014.7. In this capital murder case, the second decided on appeal in which the death penalty has been imposed under the current capital murder statute, we have under § 565.014.5 considered these similar cases in which both death and life imprisonment were submitted to the jury, and which have been affirmed on appeal: State v. Mitchell, 611 S.W.2d 223 (Mo. banc 1981); State v. Williams, 611 S.W.2d 26 (Mo. banc 1981); State v. Royal, 610 S.W.2d 946 (Mo. banc 1981); State v. Borden, 605 S.W.2d 88 (Mo. banc 1980); State v. Downs, 593 S.W.2d 535 (Mo.1980); State v. Turner, 623 S.W.2d 4 (Mo. banc 1981); and State v. Mercer, 618 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 432, 70 L.Ed.2d 240. The evidence of Newlon’s acts demonstrated a level of culpability and depraved quality supporting the jury’s verdict. The cases mentioned support the af-firmance of the death penalty in the case at bar. The sentence of death for the murder of Mansfield Dave is neither excessive nor disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases considering the crime and the appellant.
Judgment affirmed.
Date of execution set for March 26, 1982.
DONNELLY, C. J., and WELLIVER, MORGAN and HIGGINS, JJ., concur.
SEILER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part in separate opinion filed.
BARDGETT, J., concurs in separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part of SEILER, J.