Opinion ID: 1369544
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Officer Plummer

Text: Storey claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to [o]fficer Plummer testifying to Tim's interrogation statement he used to believe in the death penalty, but not anymore, because this injected irrelevant information engendering passion and prejudice suggesting that under Tim's own view death was appropriate[.] Officer Plummer testified that Storey stated he used to believe in the death penalty. He said he didn't believe in it anymore. He didn't think he should get off free. Counsel, Kenyon, testified that he should have objected. Actually, what I should have done was I should have filed a motion in limine requesting that that statement be excluded and that the prosecutor be instructed to instruct his witness to not bring that up. The 29.15 motion court held: Movant's statement to Detective Plummer that he no longer believed in the death penalty can reasonably be interpreted as evidence of guilt, particularly when he followed it with the comment that movant did not feel `he should get off free.' Storey's comment can be interpreted as evidence of guilt. It was relevant to the penalty phase, and an objection to it would have been baseless. Counsel is not deemed ineffective for declining to make a non-meritorious objection. State v. Six, 805 S.W.2d 159, 167 (Mo. banc 1991).