Opinion ID: 1103979
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to officer michael riels's blatant perjury at trial.

Text: ¶ 116. This claim centers around the testimony of Officer Mike Riels of the Forrest County Sheriff's Office. Puckett claims that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to Officer Riels's testimony regarding a custom painted tag displayed in the window of Puckett's truck. ¶ 117. To understand Puckett's argument it is necessary to begin with a pretrial motion filed by the State, by which the State sought to determine the admissibility of prior bad acts of the defendant pursuant to M.R.E. 404(b). Particularly, the State wanted to introduce a custom painted car tag which read one high toned son-of-a-bitch. Attached as Exhibit-A to the State's motion was an affidavit of Russell Moore, which stated: During early to mid 1995, I was employed as manager of Big K Quick Stop on Highway 49 North in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. During that time, Matthew Puckett was an employee of Big K. Matthew Puckett discussed with me the Stephen King movie `The Dark Half. The movie was about a writer who had two personalities, one being a good guy and one being a bad guy. The dark half of his personality was known as George Stark, who was the bad guy and who had brutally killed an elderly man by beating him to death with his artificial leg. George Stark, the dark half, drove a vehicle that had lettering on the rear that read one high toned son-of-a-bitch when he was acting out his evil personality. Puckett told me he liked George Stark, the bad guy in the movie. Shortly after the discussion about the movie, Matt Puckett came to work with a tag on the front of his truck which read one high toned son-of-a-bitch. Matt Puckett was proud of the tag and I advised him to remove it because it might be offensive to the management and public. ¶ 118. The State asserted in its motion that Puckett's acts were not being offered to prove his character but to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident for the alleged crime. The trial judge took the motion under advisement. ¶ 119. At trial, Officer Riels gave the following testimony: Q. [Prosecutor] Did you look at the outside of the truck on that occasion? A. [Officer Riels] Yes, sir. Q. Describe what you saw. A. It was a dull blue. It had a roll bar. I believe it was a black roll bar. It had an antenna on the back. It may have had two, but I believe one CB aerial antenna. And in the back of the back glass it had a personalized, what I would call a personalized tag that was an airbrush type you'd buy at the mall or something, a tag that was in the back glass. Q. and what type tag was that? MR. ADELMAN: I'm going to object. Can we approach the bench? THE COURT: Yes. Note for the record we're having a bench conference. ¶ 120. The dialogue of the bench conference is as follows: MR. JONES: I want him to identify what it was. MR. ADELMAN: He's going into the whole business about the THE COURT: Doing what? MR. ADELMAN: I just want to make sure that it's not going into the THE COURT: movie? MR. ADELMAN:The movie. MR. JONES: I'm not going into the movie. THE COURT: All right ¶ 121. The testimony of Officer Riels continued: Q. Describe what was on that tag in that back windshield. A. The tag had Time Bomb wrote on it. ¶ 122. First the matter of perjured testimony is not properly addressed by way of an objection as Puckett would have it. The proper way to address Officer Riels testimony, if it was in fact perjured, would have been through cross-examination and/or impeachment, which is what the record reveals defense counsel did. The record clearly shows that Mr. Adelman was not remiss in his cross-examination of Officer Riels. Q. [MR. ADELMAN] Do you know whether or not the vehicle was ever turned over to the Crime Lab for examination? A. [Officer Riels] No, sir. The most that I know is it was taken to our service center. Q. I see. And eventually it was returned to Mr. Puckett's family; is that correct? A. I believe so. Q. And this alleged tagno one ever took this alleged tag off the vehicle, is that correct? A. I didn't. I can't answer for anybody else. I don't know who took it off; I didn't. Q. So as far as A. I saw the tag on the side of the road on the vehicle. I had been told that that was a CB handle that the Defendant went by. Q. Who told you that? A. I believe it was Corey McLain. I believe. I'm really unsure. It may have been one of the other officers who heard it from Corey McLain. Q. So this is something you heard. And you're sure A. I had heardwhenever I saw the vehicle, I saw the tag, once I saw the tag, I knew exactly whose it was because I was told that that was a CB handle that he could go by.    A. I was told whenever we were doing the investigation, in looking for the Defendant, that he may possibly go by a CB handle Time Bomb on the CB radio, to any unit that may have a CB radio, to be listening for it. Then that night, whenever the vehicle was found, I saw the tag on the back of the truck, and I knew right then whose truck it was because I knew whose handle it was on the CB. Q. And you're sure there was a tag, and you're not confusing that with what someone else told you? A. No, sir; I'm sure it was a tag. I saw the tag, and I knew right then, you know, that's his CB handle. I pointed at the tag; I say to my self, that's his CB handle there. ¶ 123. Puckett later testified on his own behalf and he was able to address the issue concerning this tag. Q. [MR. ADELMAN] Okay. Now you've got a blue pickup, correct? A. [PUCKETT] Yes, sir. Q. And on the back of it you had this insignia that said Time Bomb, didn't you? A. No, sir. Q. Did you have a CB handle that said Time Bomb? A. I have a CB handle, yes, sir. Q. And it says Time Bomb; that's your handle, isn't it? A. Yes, sir. Q. As a matter of fact, that's your nickname, isn't it? A. Not really a nickname. It was just a Q. Well, your friends call you by Time Bomb, don't they? A. No, sir. My friends call me Matt. Q. Well, is it a nickname? Are you called by Time Bomb? A. Just a CB handle. Q. All right. Why did you pick a CB handle of Time Bomb? A. I don't know. Corey gave it to me. THE COURT: What's that? THE WITNESS: My friend Corey gave it to me. Q. Well, what's the significance of it? A. I don't know. Q. You don't have any idea? Corey gave it to you? A. Yes, sir. ¶ 124. Puckett makes no suggestion as to what his counsel should have done differently other than to object to Officer Riels's testimony. It is clear from the record that Mr. Adelman objected at the first hint of any statement regarding the tag and its reference to the Stephen King movie, The Dark Half. It is also clear from the record that Mr. Adelman attempted to impeach Officer Riels's testimony during cross-examination. It is not logical that Mr. Adelman would have attempted to impeach Officer Riels by means that would have opened the door to evidence of the one high toned son-of-a-bitch tag, which Puckett had so fervently attempted to keep out of court. ¶ 125. Puckett has failed to show that his counsel's performance was deficient and does not pass the first prong of Strickland v. Washington . Therefore, Puckett is not entitled to relief on this claim.