Opinion ID: 1800913
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Presentation of Evidence and Argument Regarding Knife and Unsubstantiated Stab Wounds

Text: In his next habeas claim, Jones asserts that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on direct appeal that the State improperly presented evidence and argument regarding a knife and unsubstantiated stab wounds. As with his previous claim, Jones does not identify the legal basis upon which appellate counsel should have presented this issue on direct appeal. Instead he refers to both allegedly preserved and unpreserved errors from the prosecutor's guilt-phase opening and closing statements and testimony adduced at trial, and argues that together this constituted reversible error that should have been raised on direct appeal. We address the preserved and unpreserved alleged errors separately below.
The unpreserved errors that Jones contends appellate counsel should have raised on direct appeal are: (1) the prosecutor's comment during opening statements that there was a knife in McRae's car that belongs to [Jones] or if it doesn't belong to him it certainly doesn't belong to Lori McRae or her husband; (2) the medical examiner's testimony that due to the lack of blood on McRae's brassiere he could rule out severe injury to McRae's chest but could not rule out that her throat had been cut, and then his testimony that he could not determine whether a hole in the upper torso of McRae's chest was caused by decomposition or instrumentation; and (3) the prosecutor's comment during closing arguments that it looked like one of McRae's shoelaces had been ripped or cut and rhetorical question about whether this had anything to do with the knife found in the car. We conclude that neither the prosecutor's comments nor the medical examiner's testimony were objectionable, much less fundamental error.
Florida Department of Law Enforcement Officer Allen Miller testified regarding the items that were processed from McRae's vehicle. When he was asked by the State why he returned to the vehicle to process evidence from the front console that had been photographed during the original search, Miller responded: Well, at the time of the original processing it was noted the items that were in the console, a pack of playing cards, some cigarettes, cassette tapes, cologne and a small paring knife was in there. And after the postmortem examination it was revealed that the victim had received some stab wounds. (Emphasis supplied.) Trial counsel objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motion and gave the following curative instruction: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let me give you a correct statement here. The last statement that the witness gave in response to a question from [the prosecutor] was involving some stab wounds on the victim. There is  that was a misstatement by Mr. Miller, the witness, there has been no evidence of any stab wounds on the victim nor will there be any concerning stab wounds on the victim, so you're to disregard that, that's absolutely a misstatement on Mr. Miller's part, okay. This Court has explained that [a] motion for mistrial is properly denied where the matter on which the motion is based is rendered harmless by a curative instruction. Perez, 919 So.2d at 364. Although Miller misspoke when he stated that the postmortem examination revealed stab wounds, the trial court quickly corrected this error by informing the jury that there had not been and would not be any evidence presented that the victim was stabbed. Thus, Miller's misstatement was rendered harmless. Trial counsel also objected to the introduction of the paring knife into evidence, arguing that the knife was not relevant. The trial court overruled the objection, finding that the knife was relevant as evidence found in the car and processed by police. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the knife into evidence. The knife was found in the victim's car and was relevant to the police investigation at one of the crime scenes. Because both the preserved and unpreserved errors regarding the paring knife and stab wounds are without merit, appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise them on direct appeal. We therefore deny this claim for relief.