Opinion ID: 2454387
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Guilt-Phase Ineffective Assistance

Text: Storey alleges several errors by trial counsel regarding sexual assault evidence. First, Storey assigns error because counsel neither objected to testimony that police prepared a rape kit, nor adequately cross-examined the witness who testified about it. Frey's body was found nude, except for a nightgown bunched up around her waist. In the State's case-in-chief, a police officer testified that a blood sample from Frey was placed into the evidence rape kit. Storey claims trial counsel should have objected because the prosecutor said in voir dire I don't, perhaps, see it [evidence of sexual assault] coming out at guilt phase. The prosecutor's statement at voir dire was equivocal, not a promise to omit sexual assault evidence at guilt phase. The brief reference to a rape kit was neither inflammatory nor prejudicial. Moreover, even if it were, trial counsel's decision not to objectand thus highlight the testimonywas a reasonable trial strategy and not ineffective assistance. Storey also argues that trial counsel was ineffective in cross-examining this same witness about details of the rape kit and the medical examination of Frey's body. At the 29.15 hearing, trial counsel testified this was a strategic decision because rape was already injected and she wanted to take the sting out of it. Trial counsel knew that sexual assault would be an issue at penalty phase, and made the strategic decision to inform the jury of it at guilt phase so it would not be so devastating in the penalty phase. The state of the victim's clothing injected rape as a possibility at both phases. Counsel's strategic choice to deal with it early was not unreasonable. Second, Storey attacks trial counsel's cross-examination of other witnesses who examined Frey's body. In fact, the challenged cross-examination elicited helpful testimony that Storey did not sexually assault Frey: (1) there was no semen or sperm, and (2) two pubic hairs found on Frey's body did not have all the characteristics of Walter Storey's pubic hair sample. Storey tries to construct an ineffective-assistance claim because this cross-examination failed to prove he did not assault Frey. In fact, the cross-examination drew admissions that the evidence could not establish Storey as a rapist. Given the state of the victim's clothing, this cross-examination helped Storey, and was not legally ineffective. Third, Storey claims that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to interview (before trial) the witness who testified that the pubic hairs on Frey did not have all of Storey's characteristics. Storey fails to demonstrate prejudice because he does not show what an interview would have revealed. Moreover, as noted above, the cross-examination (without the interview) was effective.
Storey argues that trial counsel was ineffective for eliciting testimony that Storey invoked his right to counsel when questioned by police. Storey admitted to police that he entered Frey's apartment with a knife, struggled with her, and stole money and her car, then returned the next day to wipe away his fingerprints and to discard evidence. These admissions were introduced in the State's case-in-chief. Later in guilt phase, Storey testified that he was abducted at knife point by a man resembling his uncle-in-law; that they knocked on Frey's door; that she voluntarily admitted them; that the other man then threw Storey against a wall (dazing him); and that when Storey regained consciousness he saw the other man attacking Frey in her bedroom. Storey then testified that he returned to Frey's apartment the next day and removed fingerprints and other evidence, because he was afraid of being implicated, although he had done nothing wrong. An obvious question about Storey's trial testimony is: Why didn't he tell the police about the man resembling his uncle-in-law? Counsel's decision to elicit early the answerthat the police interview was incomplete because Storey asked for a lawyer was reasonable, especially since the defense had already told the jury that Storey would testify. On this record, counsel made a reasonable strategic decision to inform the jury that the police interview was interrupted by Storey's invoking the right to counsel, because it was crucial that the jury know why Storey did not tell the police about the exculpatory evidence. Counsel testified at the 29.15 hearing that she recognized the possible prejudice, but made a judgment call that the benefits outweighed the prejudice. A strategic judgment call is not ineffective assistance. Storey also argues that trial counsel should have objected when the prosecutor in cross-examination mentioned that Storey invoked his rights. The reference was brief, and Storey had opened the door. Thus, there was no prejudice.
At guilt phase, the defense called Thomas Buel, a State forensic analyst, who testified that Frey's throat wounds did not correlate with several knives found in Storey's apartment. On cross-examination, Buel testified that it is impossible to state that a certain knife did not make cuts to cartilage, and one knife from Storey's kitchen could have caused the wounds. Storey asserts that trial counsel was ineffective by not interviewing Buel before trial (relying only on his written report), and thus failing to discover weaknesses in his testimony. This argument fails because it rests on the false assumption that Buel's testimony harmed Storey more than it helped. See Appellant's Brief at 51 (Buel's testimony became evidence for the State). In fact, Buel's testimony, taken as a whole, was a logical effort to establish reasonable doubt that Storey killed Frey. On this record, reasonable trial counsel might call Buel even after interviewing him and discovering what the State elicited on cross-examination. Moreover, any harm to Storey from the cross-examination of Buel could not have changed the result.
Storey argues that trial counsel inadequately prepared for guilt phase. Storey first attacks the decision not to call Kimberly Henry, a store clerk who sold beer to someoneshe could not remember whom, and could not identify Frey or Storeyat 11:17 p.m. on the night of the murder. The receipt for that sale was linked to Frey's apartment, and Storey contends Henry would have helped the guilt-phase defense that someone else killed Frey. Plainly, Henry's inability to remember who purchased the beer renders her testimony irrelevant, and preempts any prejudice. Storey also contends that trial counsel should have tested the two pubic hairs found on Frey because testing might have shown they belonged to someone other than Storey. In fact, the trial testimony shows that two hairs are insufficient for conclusive determinations, and thus the evidence would not have changed the result.
Storey asserts that trial counsel was impaired by alcohol use before and during trial. The record shows counsel drank beer and had a buzz on one evening while on an investigative trip, and had a couple of drinks one evening during the trial. On this record, the motion court's finding that counsel was not impaired is not clearly erroneous, and the claim borders on the frivolous.
Storey finally contends that the motion court erred by denying his offer of testimony from a Georgia sheriff that Lonnie Harnage, Storey's father-in-law, had a reputation for violence and was left-handed. This testimony, Storey argues, supported the guilt-phase defense that someone other than Storey committed the murder, and thus should have been presented at trial. This argument fails. Storey's testimony at trial was that Tony Harnage (or someone who looked like him) committed the murder. Thus, testimony about Lonnie Harnage could not have helped the guilt-phase defense. Moreover, the motion court correctly concluded that the sheriff's testimony was not admissible at trial because it merely cast suspicion on another person, with no supporting evidence. See State v. Schaal, 806 S.W.2d 659, 669 (Mo. banc 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1075, 112 S.Ct. 976, 117 L.Ed.2d 140 (1992). Choosing not to offer inadmissible testimony is not ineffective assistance. Id.