Opinion ID: 2184350
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Failure to Make a Constitutional Objection to the Introduction of a T-shirt

Text: Greene's final argument is that original trial counsel was ineffective in failing to frame a constitutional objection to the t-shirt having the inscription, If you love someone, set them free. If they don't come back, hunt them down and shoot them. At trial, Greene's counsel objected to the admission of the t-shirt arguing that it was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The trial court admitted the t-shirt over Greene's objection. Although the objection was overruled, this court held the trial court's error to be harmless and refused to reverse appellant's conviction. Greene I, 317 Ark. at 350, 878 S.W.2d at 387. According to this court, after a detailed review of the evidence, we hold that the evidence of guilt of capital murder was overwhelming, and, in view of that evidence, the error was slight. Id. Now Greene argues that counsel should have objected on the grounds that the admission of the t-shirt violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. According to appellant, even if the trial court had overruled such a constitutional objection, this court would have found constitutional error had occurred, using a different, stricter standard pursuant to Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). In denying postconviction relief, the trial court noted this court's ruling in Greene I and stated it could not conclude that, had counsel made a constitutional objection, a different result would have been reached by the jury. Greene is correct that the United States Supreme Court held that before a federal constitutional error can be declared harmless the reviewing court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Greene is also correct that this court did not hold that the admission of the t-shirt was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. However, Greene has failed to indicate what federal constitutional error arose out of the admission of the t-shirt. Greene now argues that the inscription of this t-shirt was protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nonetheless, it is unnecessary to analyze the doctrine of free speech in this context. Greene makes no assertion that the evidence which constitutes free speech is inadmissible at trial. The United States Supreme Court has concluded that the First Amendment does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive of intent. Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 113 S.Ct. 2194, 124 L.Ed.2d 436 (1993). Therefore, Greene's argument is meritless. Accordingly, the trial court's ruling is affirmed. Affirmed.