Opinion ID: 1662097
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Present Gunshot Residue Evidence

Text: Gunshot residue tests were performed on Smulls and his accomplice. No residue was detected on Smulls, and the test on his accomplice was inconclusive. During the first trial, the state's expert, Dr. Rothove, was unavailable, and the parties agreed to a short stipulation regarding the test results. At the second trial, Smulls' counsel subpoenaed Rothove, but did not call him, having just learned that he would not support the theory that the accomplice fired the shots. As we understand it, Smulls' claim is that counsel did not interview Rothove in time to adjust strategy and that counsel was ineffective for failing to present the stipulation. Smulls now concedes that the stipulation was not available on retrial and claims his counsel should have obtained an independent expert. This claim was not pled. Nevertheless, Smulls attempted to present the testimony of Donald Smith, a criminologist. Judge O'Brien gratuitously reviewed the claim, but rejected Smith's testimony because Smith could not identify which of the two suspects was the shooter, did not sufficiently duplicate the state's test, and was not otherwise credible. Smulls must establish that his counsel was ineffective in failing to obtain an independent expert and that it is reasonably probable that the deficiency affected the outcome. White v. State, 939 S.W.2d at 895-96; State v. Twenter, 818 S.W.2d at 640. Smith testified that either one of the defendants could have been the shooter. However, in conducting his own tests, Smith did not attempt to obtain the same weapon used in the crime, and he admitted that different weapons of the same make and model can kick off different residues. In addition, Smith was not certain he and the state used the same machine to conduct the tests. He also was unaware that Smulls struggled in wet grass with the police and continuously wiped his hands, which can remove residue. See Wainwright v. Lockhart, 80 F.3d 1226, 1230 (8th Cir.1996). Based upon these factors it cannot be said that it was clear error for the motion court to find Smith's evidence lacking in credibility. See State v. Hall, 982 S.W.2d 675, 687-88 (Mo. banc 1998); Wainwright, 80 F.3d at 1230