Opinion ID: 1464908
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Other Murders.

Text: Mr. Middleton claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to certain statements by the prosecution in penalty phase opening statement and closing argument, and to the testimony of certain penalty phase witnesses, that referred to the murders of Mr. Hamilton and Ms. Hodge. He argued that this argument and testimony was inadmissible and improper because he had not yet been convicted of the Hamilton and Hodge murders at the time of his trial for the murder of Mr. Pinegar. On direct appeal, Mr. Middleton claimed error in overruling his counsels' objection to admission of other evidence of the Hamilton and Hodge murders. [6] This Court rejected that argument, holding: The evidence in question was used to help the jury to understand the prior acts of Middleton for the purpose of determining punishment for the murder of Pinegar. See [ State v. ] Parker, 886 S.W.2d [908] at 924 [(Mo. banc 1994) ]; State v. Leisure, 749 S.W.2d 366, 378-79 (Mo. banc 1988). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d at 463. Similarly, here, the evidence that Mr. Middleton now says counsel should have objected to was relevant to defendant's character and was admissible on that basis. See, e.g., Morrow, 968 S.W.2d at 114-15. Counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make a meritless objection. Clay, 975 S.W.2d at 136.