Opinion ID: 1465675
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Failure to Impeach Jailhouse Witness Steven Hill

Text: Steven Hill and Mr. Johnson were housed in the same jail on the morning of the murder. In his testimony, Hill was unable to identify Mr. Johnson in the courtroom, but testified that he was in jail with Stacey Johnson, a larger person, and that Johnson stated, that when he got out of jail he was going to have sex with the first woman he ran into. Mr. Johnson contends trial counsel were ineffective for failing to impeach Hill with prior statements indicating that he was pressured to make the claim against Johnson. Trial counsel Buchanan eventually stipulated to the statement and asked no questions. Trial counsel Clark testified at the Rule 37 hearing that a defense investigator had evidence that Hill admitted to being pressured into giving his testimony. In his ruling on the Rule 37 petition, the circuit court ruled that Hill was sufficiently impeached on the stand when he failed to identify the appellant in the courtroom, and he credited Buchanan's explanation that eliciting further testimony could have been damaging. Mr. Johnson's argument on appeal is conclusory  that the reliance on the non-identification as a reason not to impeach Hill is disingenuous and unreasonable. However, Buchanan gave a reasonable explanation  that he was concerned if he pressed Hill, further testimony would be damaging. Furthermore, Mr. Johnson provides a colloquy that occurred during the Rule 37 hearing between Mr. Johnson's counsel and trial attorney Clark, in which Clark stated an investigator told Clark that he had a tape recording of an interview with Hill. In this recording, according to Clark, Hill allegedly told the investigator he had been pressured into giving his statement against Mr. Johnson. Again, this was hearsay within hearsay. Mr. Johnson did not produce the tape, an affidavit from the investigator or the investigator himself, or an affidavit from Hill or Hill himself, to testify as to the veracity of these statements allegedly made by Hill. Furthermore, Clark did not testify that he heard the tape himself. Without any actual evidence before the circuit court that Hill had been pressured into giving testimony, it was not error for the circuit court to conclude there was no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel in regard to impeachment of Hill's testimony.