1

SHAWN C. HANNA, )

)

Movant-Appellant/Cross-Respondent, )

)

v. ) Nos. SD35632, 35646

)

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) Filed: October 29, 2019

)

Respondent-Respondent/Cross-Appellant. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOWELL COUNTY

Honorable William E. Hickle, Special Judge 

AFFIRMED

The motion court granted in part Shawn C. Hanna’s (“Movant’s”) Rule 29.151

post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. The State appeals that partial 

grant of relief and Movant cross-appeals the denial of relief on other grounds. We affirm 

the partial grant of relief. Because of that affirmance and the relief granted of a new trial, 

we do not address Movant’s other claims of error.

 1 All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2019). 
2

Movant was convicted of killing his father, Ralph Hanna.

2 In its Findings of Fact, 

Conclusions of Law, and Judgment, the motion court noted that this case was tried to a 

jury three times -- the first and second trial ended in a hung jury. In the point relevant to 

this decision, Movant claimed that his trial attorneys were ineffective for not 

interviewing, investigating, subpoenaing, and calling Nadia Black to testify. After noting 

the standard it used to ascertain whether counsel was effective, the motion court correctly 

noted that Missouri courts require Movant to show: “(1) the witness could have been 

located through reasonable investigation; (2) the witness would have testified if called; 

and (3) the testimony would have provided a viable defense.” Williams v. State, 8 

S.W.3d 217, 219 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999). 

The motion court found the following with regard to Ms. Black:3

[S]he lived due south of the Hanna residence at the time of Ralph 

Hanna’s death, directly across Highway N. The morning of November 16, 

2003, she was in her bed reading a book. She heard a loud shot fired at 

8:30 a.m. She immediately looked at her clock and it said 8:30. She either 

heard one or two shots, testifying, “So I wasn’t sure if I heard one or two 

very close together. I think just one because the first one seemed louder, 

but I’m not positive.” The sound of the shot came from the north. She 

testified, “I just thought well, somebody is off hunting to the north, but I 

thought they’re awfully close because it was very loud.” She lived on ten 

acres with road frontage to Highway N, directly across the highway from 

the Hanna home. Upon hearing the shot, she testified, “I chirped up and 

am thinking that’s across the street, that’s from the north. And it was 

extremely loud." 

Ms. Black was questioned repeatedly in her deposition concerning 

the time that she heard the shot, and she answered as follows:

“I remember looking immediately at my clock, and it said 

8:30. It could have been 25 after or 35 after, but 8:30 is 

what I saw on my clock.”

 2 Movant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

3 The motion court’s findings and conclusions are set forth below without further attribution and all internal 

citations to the record have been omitted. 
3

“It was a little round Westclock beige colored . . . [t]o my

left on the night table. . . . But I looked immediately, and it 

was set on 8:30. As I say, it was a mechanical clock, not 

electric, so it could have been 25 after, 35 after, but it was 

8:30.”

[“]Q. Is it possible that it could have been sooner than 

8:30? A. I don’t think so. My clocks were rarely ever 

wrong.”

“I’m not – can’t be possible positive that it was exactly 

8:30 it could have been a couple minutes either way.”

“I’m certain it was 8:30. But being absolutely honest and 

knowing a lot of mechanical scientific things, it wasn’t an 

anatomic [sic] clock. It wasn’t precise. It could have been a 

minute or two off and still said 8:30.”

Ms. Black testified after the shooting incident involving Mr. Ralph 

Hanna, two law enforcement officers came to interview her. Ms. Black 

told police she heard one shot and an echo or two or three shots very close 

together. Ms. Black told police the shot was coming from the north. When 

asked whether she was ever contacted by Movant[’]s trial attorneys, she 

answered,

No, I never was. The only people who ever 

contacted me regarding this were the two officers who 

came I don’t know if it was that day, probably the next day. 

And I don’t remember if they were county or state. But 

they were the only ones who ever contacted me.

Ms. Black still lived in the same house at the time of Movant’s 

2010 jury trial. Ms. Black would have been willing and able to testify at 

Movant’s trial had she been contacted.

At the postconviction relief hearing, Ms. Anthony [(one of 

Movant’s trial attorneys)] testified she recalled Ms. Black told police she 

heard a shot at 8:30 a.m. Ms. Anthony's recollection was Ms. Black was 

not confident of her timing. Ms. Anthony agreed that Ms. Black gave a 

different time than Mr. Fann testified to at trial. Ms. Anthony 

acknowledged the timeline was very important to Movant’s defense at 

trial. Ms. Anthony testified the State had inconsistent timelines from other 

witnesses as well in the case. She asserted that she had never talked to Ms. 

Black, but that her investigator had talked to Ms. Black. Ms. Anthony’s 

recollection is that Ms. Black was not confident about the time that she 

heard the shot. Ms. Anthony testified that she asked her investigator to 
4

gather some facts about Ms. Black’s statement and that she considered 

those facts that the investigator gathered and reported to her.

The motion court noted the contradictions in Ms. Anthony’s testimony at the 

evidentiary hearing with statements made by Ms. Anthony on the record to the trial court 

on December 17, 2010, hours after the jury returned its guilty verdict: 

MS. ANTHONY: Obviously last night I did a lot of soul searching 

and thinking about my performance in the case . . . During the pendency 

of [Movant’s] case, my office had no investigator. We were the only office 

in the entire state that had no investigator when this case started. I then got 

a part-time investigator who I was not allowed, under the state rules, to 

have to work overtime. I failed to request special funds for an investigator 

on this case. My part-time investigator made multiple trips to Poplar Bluff 

to investigate this case, but the reality is the attorneys in the case ended up 

doing a lot of the leg work, or trying to do the leg work, in addition to 

handling their cases because, by the time a part-time investigator drove to 

Poplar Bluff, his time was gone.

Additionally, I cannot find any place in the file where anyone 

talked to Nadia Black who was a witness that the police officers spoke to, 

who said that she heard the shots at 8:30. I think the timeline is critical. I 

didn’t get the case until 2007, but that is no excuse for me. I should know 

and be able to tell this Court whether or not Nadia Black is even alive. 

And if she would have been unavailable, and therefore her hearsay 

statements would have been admissible, and that is a failure on my part.

The motion court found credible the statements made by Ms. Anthony on 

December 17, 2010, and further found the statements at the evidentiary hearing lacked

credibility: 

Hours after the jury verdict, at the time that the trial was fresh on her 

mind, Ms. Anthony stated clearly as an officer of the court that she simply 

failed to investigate Ms. Black as a potential witness and did not even 

know whether Ms. Black was even alive. Her recollection more tha[n] 

five years later at the time of the April 29, 2016 postconviction relief 

hearing that she had talked to her investigator about the merits of Ms. 

Black as a witness appears to be inaccurate, and the Court so finds.

 

Further, the motion court found “[t]he time of the shooting was crucial because of 

the activities which the State asserted necessarily took place after the shooting.” Further: 
5

The 8 a.m. time of shooting was important for two reasons. First, 

the State argued it was evidence of murder rather than an accident, 

because of the unexplained delay by Denise Hanna in calling for help. If 

the shot was fired at 8 a.m., then she delayed forty minutes before calling 

the police at 8:40 a.m. Second, it allowed time for Movant to return to the 

Hanna home on foot, get in the white vehicle with his mother, be 

transported to the Cates driveway, and drive to the Eads’ home in 

Williamsville. The drive from the Hanna house to the Eads’ house in 

Williamsville using the most direct route was 20 to 25 minutes. The trip 

would have required an unknown additional period of time because 

Michael Cates observed the Mercedes drive west on Highway N after it 

left his driveway, which is in the opposite direction of both Ellsinore and 

Williamsville. No evidence of an alternate route was given at trial, but it 

would have required more time since the Mercedes drove west when 

leaving the Cates driveway, while Williamsville is situated to the east.

If the shooting did not occur until 8:30 a.m., then the call by 

Denise Hanna within ten minutes at 8:40 a.m. would not be as suspicious. 

Further, if the shooting did not occur until 8:30 a.m., it would be nearly 

impossible for Movant to accomplish all of the above activities and drive 

to the Eads house by 9:00 a.m. or shortly thereafter. Moreover, if the 

shooting did not occur until 8:30 a.m., then someone other than Movant 

was likely the shooter, given that the State asserted that Movant was 

present at the vehicle exchange in the Cates driveway between 8:15 a.m. 

and 8:30 a.m. 

Both attorneys emphasized the importance of the time of death in 

their opening statements. Prosecuting attorney Kevin Zoellner told the 

jury:

At eight o’clock that morning, Donald Fann is 

getting ready to sit down to watch some program on his 

TV. I guess Donald is a creature of habit. Eight o’clock 

every morning on a Sunday he sits down. He thinks it was a 

news program but he doesn’t remember for sure what type 

of program but it was at the top of the hour. And he knows 

it was eight o’clock because, Donald is a little bit of a 

character he strikes me. He describes in his room that he’s 

got lots of clocks . . . He’s got three Dale Earnhardt clocks 

right there in his room. And he’ll tell you right at eight 

o’clock he heard a loud gunshot . . . And it startled him so 

bad right at eight o’clock, what did he do? He popped up 

and headed out the front door to look to see where that was 

at . . . It was right at eight o’clock. Okay?

About eight-thirty, a whole half-hour later, Denise 

Hanna who apparently is at home you’ll learn, apparently at 

home making a birthday cake for Ralph. That’s what she 

says, claims she’s doing. But it’s not till eight-thirty that 

anybody ever gets a call for help . . . So from eight to eight-
6

thirty Ralph is dead in his yard whil[e] Denise is baking a 

cake. Well, that’s not actually what’s happening because 

remember the Cates? Michael and Jesse Cates saw that car 

up there.

Donna Anthony’s opening statement includes the following:

Well, on the 17th, some of the deputies decide to do 

something called canvassing the neighborhood and they go 

and they talk to various neighbors to see what they heard 

and what they saw. And they find neighbors who did see 

some suspicious things. They talk to one lady who said 

around 8:30-

MR. ZOELLNER: Your Honor, could we approach 

please? (Counsel approached the bench . . .)

MR. ZOELLNER: Your Honor, I’m going to 

object to the hearsay statements of any witness that’s not 

been endorsed as a witness or intended to be called. I’m not 

sure who this lady is that they’re referring to but as you 

know, they’ve endorsed just one witness who was not a 

neighbor at that time and to try and get in hearsay 

statements from officers about different times when they’re 

offering it for the truth of the matter.

MS. ANTHONY: I’m not offering it for the truth 

of the matter. 

THE COURT: What purpose?

MS. ANTHONY: I’m offering it for the purpose of 

the information that they had to go on for their subsequent 

investigation.

MR. ZOELLNER: Judge, it’s being offered for the 

truth of the matter because when she stands up in closing 

argument, she’s going to say, “Neighbors, neighbors said 

8:30; this timeline is wrong.” You’ve got to bring these 

people in, Judge.

The above exchange makes clear that all attorneys were aware of 

the importance of the time of shooting to the outcome of the case. During 

the evidence phase of trial, defense counsel tried twice unsuccessfully to 

get before the jury the alternative time of shooting. First, during cross 

examination of Missouri State Highway Patrol Sergeant Scott Stoelting, 

one of the case investigators, the following exchange occurred:

Q. [by defense counsel Rantz] [sic] Okay. You had 

mentioned that you can’t attest that you read all the reportsA. That’s correct.
7

. . . .

Q. At any time did you have any information as to 

any witnesses to the time of death?

A. There were some witnesses that were identified 

that heard a gunshot at a certain time in the morning.

Q. Multiple witnesses?

A. I don’t remember how many.

Q. More than one?

A. There were more thanMR ZOELLNER: I’m sorry[,] Sergeant Stoelting. I 

don’t mean to interrupt you, but Judge, can we approach 

about something?

[AT BENCH]

MR. ZOELLNER: Judge, I’m going to object that 

any of this testimony is being offered as trying to get a time 

of death that’s different than what the State has called, is 

hearsay. I don’t know if this officer read these reports or 

not . . . 

. . . .

MR. ZOELLNER: It’s being offered Judge -- to 

say that there’s multiple information, there’s different 

information, they’re trying to put in hearsay statements to 

be offered for the truth of the matter so that can - like they 

said in opening statement, which they denied they were 

going to do, and now they’re doing it. It’s hearsay. It’s 

being offered for the truth of the matter. It’s actually double 

and triple hearsay.

. . . .

THE COURT: To ask about different times, I 

would sustain that objection.

Second, later in the same examination of Sgt. Stoelting the following 

exchange occurred:

MR. ZOELLNER: When you got out there the 

information you had from the officers from Denise was that 

two shots had been fired?

A. Yes[.]

MR. RANZ: Hearsay within hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. I’ve already allowed that 

in. Let’s move on.
8

. . . .

[AT BENCH]

MR. RANZ: Your Honor, you just allowed in 

testimony, information that this officer received from 

another officer. You already sustained the state’s objection 

as to-- if I were to ask if there were different times and 

what those times were, which is the same question here. It 

is another officer receiving information from another 

officer.

THE COURT: All right. And your point is?

MR. RANZ: I believe that I can ask a question if 

there were different times of this witness and this witness 

knew what those times were.

. . . .

MR. ZOELLNER: No Judge --

THE COURT: . . . I’m sustaining the prior 

objection. 

Finally, the importance of the time of shooting is shown by the 

emphasis that the State gave the issue during closing argument. Josh 

Harrel for the State argued:

But in considering whether or not this was an accident, the other 

thing to look at - possibly more important - is the timing of the events that 

you heard. The shot that killed Ralph Hanna was fired at almost exactly 8 

o’clock in the morning of November 16, 2003. Remember Donald Fann. 

He was sitting in his house watching his news program. He’s got his three 

Dale Earnhardt clocks and he hears a shot. . . . And when he heard that 

shot, his clocks were straight up 8 o’clock or very close. The news 

program that he was watching started at 8 o’clock was just coming on. The 

shot that killed Ralph Hanna was fired at 8 o’clock.

Now fast forward. When did the calls for help go out? We know 

from the statements that Denise Hanna made that she was . . . home when 

all of this happened. So when did she call for help? . . . That time is 40 

minutes after the fatal shot is fired. . . . Why did she wait 40 minutes to

call for help? Because it wasn’t an accidental shooting. She wasn’t 

standing in her kitchen and saw a stray bullet hit her husband. She would 

have called for help right away. Who wouldn’t have? She needed time.

. . . .

So where was this defendant that morning? We know from 

Kristin Eads that he left about 5 o’clock that morning, right before her 

grandfather clock chimed. And no one has been able to say with certainty 
9

that they saw him until he gets back to Kristin Eads’ home around 9 

o’clock.

. . . .

So what happens next that morning? What was Denise Hanna 

doing during the time between when Ralph was killed and when she

started calling for help, that 40 minutes? . . . Well, again we can go to 

Michael Cates . . . And Mr. Cates testified . . . he thought it was around 

8:15, 8:30 that morning; right in the window between when Ralph Hanna 

was killed and when Denise Hanna called for help. . . . Dropping someone 

off at the defendant’s car, in the window of time between when Ralph 

Hanna was killed and Denise Hanna called for help.

The motion court found that Movant’s trial counsel failed to interview, investigate 

and subpoena Ms. Black as a witness and, in the process, deprived Movant of an 

important and viable defense. The jury only heard the witness for the State that the shot 

that killed Ralph Hanna was fired at 8:00 a.m. The jury did not hear that the shot was 

fired at 8:30 a.m. because Movant’s counsel did not interview Ms. Black, did not contact 

her, and did not call her as a witness, despite knowing of her existence and what her

testimony would be. The motion court found no strategic reason, sound or otherwise, for 

failing to investigate, interview, and subpoena Ms. Black and that Movant was 

prejudiced. The court found that there was a reasonable probability that, but for 

counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result would have been different.

We review the motion court’s rulings to determine whether the findings and 

conclusions of the trial court are clearly erroneous. Rotellini v. State, 77 S.W.3d 632, 

634 (Mo.App. E.D. 2001). Upon review of the entire record, we must be left with a

definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Id. We are not left with such 

a definite and firm impression. The State does not argue that trial counsel was effective, 

rather, the State argues that the testimony of Ms. Black would not have changed the result 
10

of the trial because of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. In making that argument, the 

State relies upon the “far more credible testimony of a neighbor” who testified that the 

shot was fired at 8:00 a.m. The State’s argument misses the mark. The point of the 

motion court’s ruling was that the jury only heard one side as to the time of the shot and 

that timing was critical. It was for the jury to determine who was “more credible” at the 

trial. The State then points to Movant’s actions as “consciousness of guilt” as part of the 

overwhelming evidence necessary to make a finding of no reasonable probability of a 

different result. Again, the State misses the mark. If the jury had been presented with 

and believed that the shooting occurred at a different time, the inference that Movant’s 

actions showed a consciousness of guilt would not necessarily have followed. For 

instance, the State notes that Movant refused to tell his girlfriend’s mother about the 

event. If Movant did not commit the murder, then it would be hard for him to tell his 

girlfriend’s mother anything about the event. Although the State points to several 

circumstantial events that could be used to convict Movant, the fact remains that the 

motion court found that a critical and contrary piece of evidence was not given to the jury

at the trial of Movant. We cannot find that the motion court clearly erred in that finding. 

The judgment is affirmed.

Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, J. – Opinion Author

Gary W. Lynch, P.J. – Concurs

William W. Francis, Jr., J. – Concurs