Opinion ID: 37721
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim (3)(a)

Text: Shield’s first properly-preserved claim alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective during the guilt-innocence phase of the trial because he failed to object to the admission into evidence of the hammer and knives found at the scene of the crime. With regard to both weapons, Shields specifically argues that he merits a COA on this claim because no evidence connected 45 Id. at 694. 46 Id. at 691. 47 Soffar, 368 F.3d at 478. 48 Williams v. Cain, 125 F.3d 269, 279 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). 31 the weapons to the crime, or, stated differently, no witness testified and no testing revealed that the weapons introduced by the prosecution were the weapons used during the crime. Citing Texas Rule of Evidence 403, the district court rejected this claim on the grounds that the probative value of the hammer and the knives outweighed their prejudicial effect, and trial counsel need not raise a meritless objection. Agreeing with the state court, the district court found that if trial counsel had objected to the admission of this evidence, the state trial court would not have been wrong to overrule the objection. We agree. Under both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Texas Rules of Evidence, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.49 The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 403 define “unfair prejudice” as “an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly though not necessarily, an emotional one,” and we have adopted this definition.50 When a defendant challenges evidence on the basis of Rule 403, we require courts to “look at the ‘incremental probity’ of the evidence in question in analyzing the offering party’s need to 49 FED. R. EVID. 403; TEX. R. EVID. 403. 50 FED. R. EVID. 403 advisory committee’s note; see also Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 750 F.2d 1314, 1334 (5th Cir. 1985). 32 make this form of proof and the tendency of the questioned evidence to invite an irrational decision.”51 Viewing the hammer and the knives within this rubric, we find that their admission neither suggested a decision on an improper basis nor invited an irrational decision. The hammer and the knives were highly probative of the state’s case. Tracy Stiner discovered the hammer on the floor of his home when he discovered his wife’s body. He testified that this hammer was his and that it was in the garage when he left for work that morning. Detectives called to the scene found the hammer in the breakfast room together with an overturned chair, a purse, a checkbook, and an X-Ray folder from the doctor’s office.52 In addition, the medical examiner, Dr. Korndorffer, testified that Paula Stiner suffered a laceration on the top of her head and a contusion on her forehead consistent with blunt force trauma. Dr. Korndorffer testified further that these wounds were consistent with the hammer found at the scene. He also testified that Paula Stiner suffered blunt force trauma to her hands, which bent and damaged her rings and knocked the stone out of one of 51 Jackson, 750 F.2d at 1334 (citing United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc)). 52 Evidence presented at trial showed that Paula Stiner left work early on the 21st to visit the doctor’s office and, when she left, she was carrying a folder of X-Rays. 33 them. Dr. Korndorffer testified additionally that the knife wounds to Paula Stiner’s body were caused by a knife with a blade that was five inches long and three-fourths of an inch wide. Tracy Stiner testified that a knife with a blade of five inches length and a width of three-fourths of an inch was missing from the knife set on the counter, and the prosecution introduced the set of knives from the Stiner home to show that the missing one fit the descriptions of Dr. Korndorffer and Tracy Stiner. We conclude that the probative value of the hammer and the knives is not outweighed by unfair prejudice. The record clearly demonstrates that the hammer was the one found at the scene. Record evidence regarding the knives belies Shields’s assertion that they were irrelevant, given Mr. Stiner’s testimony that the one knife missing from the set fit the description of the weapon that caused the stab wounds to Paula Stiner’s body. More importantly, because Shields specifically argues that no testimony or evidence proved that these were the weapons used to perpetrate the crime, we view Shields’s claims of error to the admissibility of the weapons as a challenge to their “chain of custody.” As we have explained, “[i]n cases where the defendant questions whether the evidence offered is the same as the items actually seized, the role of the district court is to determine 34 whether the government has made a prima facie showing of authenticity.”53 A “break in the chain of custody simply goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.”54 The abovenoted record evidence establishes that the State made out a prima facie case of authenticity. Consequently, any possible break in the chain of custody would only go to the weight the jury accorded the hammer and the knives. We cannot say that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of the hammer and the knives. Shields has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right with regard to his evidentiary challenge. Thus, we decline to issue a COA on this claims.