Opinion ID: 1662097
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Counsel's Race-Recognition Testimony

Text: Smulls' former counsel attempted to testify via affidavit that during the initial Rule 29.15 hearing, Judge Corrigan referred to the woman who years before sued him for sexual discrimination as white. The state objected to the testimony on several grounds, including relevancy, and Judge O'Brien sustained the objection. Although the testimony was offered to show Judge Corrigan's possible bias or untruthfulness about race-recognition, it is irrelevant to show counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to discover that bias or untruthfulness. For this evidence to be relevant to that claim, the evidence must have been known to counsel or discoverable during reasonable investigation. White v. State, 939 S.W.2d 887, 895-96 (Mo. banc 1997). However, Judge Corrigan's statement was not made to counsel until the initial Rule 29.15 hearing, after trial. Smulls' counsel could not have presented this evidence in a motion to disqualify before or during trial, many months before the statement was made.