Opinion ID: 1369544
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prison killings

Text: Storey claims that counsel was ineffective for not objecting to [c]ross-examination of corrections expert Aiken about prison killings at Jefferson City Correctional Center because it was irrelevant and the prosecutor made factually false representations about those killings which in addition constituted prosecutorial misconduct[.] The line of questioning was as follows: Q. Are you aware in the same Jefferson City facility, an individual by the name of Bobby O'Neal killing a correctional officer? MR. KENYON: Your Honor, I'm going to object to anymore questions pertaining to Jefferson City Correctional Center. Mr. Storey has been in Potosi Correctional Center, not the Jefferson City Correctional Center, it is irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled as to this question. You may answer if you can, sir. . . . . Q. Jefferson City is a maximum security and was a maximum security, remains always a maximum security facility for housing some of the worst inmates with the worst sentences. What I'm asking you, not unlike Potosi, those are the kind of people that are housed at Postosi. Are you aware of the murder of a correctional officer by Bobby O'Neal at the Jefferson City facility? A. I do not have the particulars on that particular case. Storey complains that the prosecutor mixed up the cases and that the inmate O'Neal actually killed another inmate and not a corrections officer. The motion court held: It is not reasonable to think that competent trial counsel would possess command of the facts of every reported Missouri death penalty case such that he or she could detect any variance in the facts in a question posed. There was no evidence that this variance was intentional by the State, nor is there any evidence to suggest this factual variance was prejudicial. A question is not evidence and no prejudice results from questions that are not answered. State v. Williams, 652 S.W.2d 102, 110 (Mo. banc 1983). Counsel objected to the prosecutor's question and was overruled. This is a confusing line of questioning, but two objections were not necessary. The prosecutor asked the question, which was not factually accurate, and the witness did not answer. There was nothing left for counsel to object to. Counsel is not deemed ineffective for declining to make a non-meritorious objection. Six, 805 S.W.2d at 167.