Opinion ID: 853352
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Mishandling of the Murder Weapon

Text: When Officer James VanCleave recovered the murder weapon, a .357 magnum revolver, it appeared to be functioning. However, Sergeant Edward Wessel testified at trial that the weapon was inoperable when he received it for testing and that it took him thirty to forty-five minutes to repair it. R. at 2431, 2477. Wrinkles alleges that the State mishandled the weapon while in its possession and that counsel were ineffective for failing to object to its admission because it was not in substantially the same condition as at the time of the crime. Br. of Appellant at 33 (quotation omitted). Wrinkles has failed to prove that an objection would have been sustained if made because the weapon was operable when admitted into evidence and Sergeant Wessel, after repairing the weapon, was able to determine that eleven bullets recovered from the crime scene and the victims' bodies were fired by the weapon. R. at 2433-34. Further, Wrinkles has not shown prejudice in that he admitted firing the weapon. R. at 2753. The post-conviction court did not err in concluding that counsel were not ineffective for failing to object to the admission of the murder weapon.