Opinion ID: 1893812
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Call a Handwriting Expert

Text: At trial, counsel attempted to introduce a letter allegedly written by Vance, which provided details of the escape plan. The letter was addressed to Karl and was signed by Roy. The letter stated that that there was no button for help at the jail and that camera doesn't even record anything so they wouldn't even have a clue who did it. The letter further stated that [t]here isn't any of them that work here with enough heart to play hero as long as it's done right. The letter contains no reference to any plan to use violence against the guards. The trial court ruled the letter inadmissible because there was no foundation that Vance actually wrote the letter. Tisius argues that the letter was crucial to his defense that he only planned to assist Vance in escaping from jail and did not contemplate killing anyone. He asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to retain a handwriting expert to authenticate the letter because it was crucial to his defense that he did not deliberate. When a movant claims ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to locate and present expert witnesses, he must show that such experts existed at the time of trial, that they could have been located through reasonable investigation, and that the testimony of these witnesses would have benefited movant's defense. State v. Davis, 814 S.W.2d 593, 603-604 (Mo. banc 1991). If the letter had been authenticated and admitted into evidence, it would not have benefited Tisius' defense. The letter was not written by Tisius or addressed to him and, therefore, has little or no relevance to his state of mind at the time he shot the guards. The facts relevant to Tisius' state of mind are, as discussed above, his participation in planning the escape attempt, his decision to bring the gun into the jail, and his decision to shoot each guard multiple times. The letter does not show that Tisius did not deliberate prior to murdering the guards or that he was under the control of Vance and Bulington. The motion court did not clearly err in denying relief on this claim.