Opinion ID: 1768472
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Asking William Worley about a Grave

Text: On cross-examination, defense counsel asked William Worley if he had seen a freshly dug grave on defendant's property. Worley responded that he saw what looked like one, covered by boards. Defendant believes this evidence prejudiced him, suggesting he prepared to dispose of the bodies on his property. First, during guilt phase, the sheriff testified about a short trench on defendant's property, where someone was working on the sewer line. Asked if it could be a grave, the sheriff said a short one, and for a short pygmy. Thus, the jury heard that the trench was not a grave. Second, defendant takes Worley's testimony out of context. Defense counsel elicited the information while requesting that Worley tell weird things defendant did. For example, defendant talked about people out in the woods (who Worley never saw), and defendant walked around his yard picking up cellophane drug packages (which were not there). Unlike the evidence in United States v. Villalpando, 259 F.3d 934, 939 (8th Cir. 2001), and State v. McCarter, 883 S.W.2d 75, 79 (Mo.App.1994), this information either was innocuous, or supported defendant's mitigation theory. If the jury believed the sheriff, the grave was repair work. If the jury believed Worley, the grave supported counsel's argument elaborated in closingthat drugs had made defendant weird and bizarre. Counsel was not ineffective in eliciting this information.