Opinion ID: 1667375
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Call Dr. Donald Cross

Text: Anderson further asserts that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because his counsel was ineffective for failing to retain and call Dr. Donald Cross, who would have testified that Anderson suffered post-traumatic stress disorder due to past abuse. Anderson argues that Dr. Cross's testimony would have increased the probability that the jury would have accepted his diminished capacity defense. `Generally, the selection of witnesses and the introduction of evidence are questions of trial strategy and virtually unchallengeable.' Taylor v. State, 126 S.W.3d 755, 762 (Mo. banc 2004) (quoting State v. Kenley, 952 S.W.2d 250, 266 (Mo. banc 1997)). `[D]efense counsel is not required to shop for an expert witness who might provide more favorable testimony.' Id. (quoting Kenley, 952 S.W.2d at 268). Anderson's defense counsel used the testimony of two expert witnesses, Drs. Lewis and Pincus, to support a diminished capacity defense. Defense counsel was not required to offer Dr. Cross's testimony to support or supplement the theories of Drs. Lewis and Pincus. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to call Dr. Cross to make Anderson's defense even more compelling. Anderson is not entitled to post-conviction relief on this claim.