Opinion ID: 1753481
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Teachers and School Officials

Text: The motion court found trial counsel ineffective for failing to call six additional teachers and school officials: (1) Donna BrownGlass's 10th grade language arts teacher, (2) Eric ChurchwellGlass's middle and high school industrial arts teacher, (3) Judy Caldwellthe middle school counselor at Glass's school, (4) Elaine LongacreGlass's 8th grade health teacher, (5) Vince MatlickGlass's middle school physical education teacher, and (6) Debbie Higbee RobertsGlass's middle and high school music teacher. Generally, these teachers would have testified that Glass was picked on for being overweight, that he liked music and played the saxophone, that he was not violent in their presence, that he did not have the best home life, and that he was a loner and quiet. This testimony was already presented through the 10 mitigating witnesses that trial counsel called. Further, counsel investigated two of these teachers (Brown and Roberts) and chose as a matter of trial strategy not to call them as mitigating witnesses. Counsel testified that he did not call Brown because she knew the victim's family and was reluctant to get involved. Counsel did not recall why he did not call Roberts. Counsel may not have called Roberts because she would have testified that he was surly and aggressive, and the jury may have given weight to those statements since Roberts was Glass's band and choir teacher for seven years and Glass's participation in those activities was brought up many times by the mitigating witnesses. Counsel's strategic choice not to call these teachers after investigating them is virtually unchallengeable and should not have been second-guessed by the motion court. See Harris, 870 S.W.2d at 816-17. In finding counsel ineffective for failing to call each of these six teachers, the motion court cited Hutchison . But, as discussed previously, Hutchison is distinguishable. Here, counsel conducted a thorough investigation into Glass's school career, and cannot be found ineffective for failing to contact every teacher and school official that encountered Glass over his 13 years in school. Also, these witnesses would not have provided a viable defense as their testimony is merely cumulative to that presented by the 10 witnesses trial counsel called. See Bucklew v. State, 38 S.W.3d 395, 398 (Mo. banc 2001) (counsel not ineffective for failing to call a witness whose testimony would be cumulative to that of other witnesses). The motion court clearly erred in finding counsel ineffective for failing to call these witnesses.