Opinion ID: 2452857
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Impeachment of Scene Witness Charles Ingram

Text: Hall claims that the motion court erred by failing to find that trial counsel was ineffective for not impeaching scene witness Charles Ingram with his pretrial inconsistent statement. Ingram testified at trial that he saw Hall in the vicinity of White's shop between 10:30 and 11 a.m. Ingram told police prior to trial that he believed he saw Hall in the vicinity of White's shop around 11:55 a.m. Failure to impeach a witness does not automatically entitle Hall to post-conviction relief. See Phillips, 940 S.W.2d at 522. Hall must establish that the impeachment of Charles Ingram would have provided him with a defense to the crime of first-degree murder, or that it would have changed the outcome of the trial. Phillips, 940 S.W.2d at 522. In establishing this, Hall must overcome the presumption that trial counsel's decision not to impeach was a matter of reasonable trial strategy. Phillips, 940 S.W.2d at 522; State v. Twenter, 818 S.W.2d 628, 640 (Mo. banc 1991) (if [a] prior inconsistent statement by a state's witness does not give rise to a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt, such impeachment evidence is not the basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.). Hall's counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that she believed that Ingram's inconsistency was irrelevant because Hall testified that he was in White's store and that he shot White; therefore, Ingram's testimony placing Hall at the scene of the murder was not necessary to the state's case. Hall's argument that this inconsistency would have reinforced his version of the facts is too remote and speculative to establish either ineffective assistance of counsel or prejudice. The motion court found that Hall's counsel practiced sound trial strategy in choosing not to cross-examine Ingram on his prior inconsistent statement. The motion court did not err. Point denied.