Opinion ID: 1439724
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: State's evidence of motive

Text: Goodwin's second claim states: The motion court clearly erred in denying a hearing on the claim that [Goodwin's] counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence to rebut the state's suggestion that [Goodwin] blamed Ms. Crotts for being evicted from the boarding house and killed her as a result, because this denied [Goodwin] due process, effective assistance of counsel, and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment, . . . in that the motion alleged facts, not conclusions, that entitled [Goodwin] to relief, that counsel acted unreasonably in failing to investigate and present documentary evidence, cancelled checks, and witnesses, Royal Crase, Mary Elaine Goodwin, Andy Silkwood, and Ray Dickerson, who would have established that [Goodwin] was not evicted from the boarding house in August 1996 because of fights with Ms. Crotts, rather he lived there until November, 1996; Ms. Crotts never complained about [Goodwin] to Mr. Crase, the owner of the boarding house; and when [Goodwin] moved from Mr. Crase's residence, he did not threaten Ms. Crotts. At trial, the prosecutor talked about a grudge that Goodwin had against Mrs. Crotts based upon their interactions while Goodwin was living next door. As part of this motive, the prosecutor presented evidence that Goodwin was evicted because of his altercations with Mrs. Crotts. Goodwin claims that counsel was ineffective for not investigating or challenging the actual time and reason that Goodwin moved out. The motion court denied a hearing on this point. It held: The proposed testimony cited in the 29.15 motion would not have provided [Goodwin] with a defense to the violent murder of the victim. The Court's review of the proposed testimony indicates that if such testimony had been offered it would have been based upon hearsay, speculation and opinion as to [Goodwin's] thoughts or motives. As this testimony would have been inadmissible and does not provide a defense, trial counsel cannot be found to be ineffective for failing to call these witnesses. . . . . As noted above, the Court's review of the proposed testimony indicates that if such testimony had been offered it would have been based upon hearsay, speculation and opinion as to [Goodwin's] thoughts or motives. As this testimony would have been inadmissible and does not provide a defense, trial counsel cannot be found to be ineffective for failing to call these witnesses. The motion court did not clearly err. These witnesses would have testified that Goodwin was not evicted in August, but instead later in November. They would have testified that Mrs. Crotts did not complain to the boarding house and that Goodwin did not have an altercation with Mrs. Crotts in October or November. The testimony does not contradict the State's evidence or theory that Goodwin held a grudge against Mrs. Crotts based on altercations with her during the time he lived at the boarding house and especially based upon the altercation in August. It only shows that he may not have actually been evicted in August. The trial court did not clearly err when it held that it would be speculation for these witnesses to testify that Goodwin did not hold a grudge against Mrs. Crotts based on evidence that Goodwin's rent was paid through October, that he was not evicted in August, or that they helped him move out in October. Even if it is true that he was not evicted in August, Goodwin has not offered evidence to rebut the prosecutor's argument that he held a grudge against Mrs. Crotts because of his prior altercations with her or that such rebuttal would impact the validity of his penalty phase. Goodwin is not entitled to any relief from his conviction, based upon this evidence, for killing her. He has not cite[d] facts, not conclusions, which, if true, would entitle [Goodwin] to relief or show that he was prejudiced by not having this evidence presented. State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1, 16 (Mo. banc 1992). Goodwin was not entitled to a hearing, and no prejudice exists because the timing of Goodwin's eviction would not provide a viable defense to Goodwin for killing Mrs. Crotts. This point is denied.