Opinion ID: 1628268
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Use of Computerized Slide Show

Text: Mr. Strong argues that the motion court erred in denying Mr. Strong's claim that counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to preserve an objection to the prosecutor's use of a computerized slide show during the penalty-phase closing argument and counsel failed to record the reactions of the jury to this computerized slide show. The slide show incorporated photographs admitted into evidence and photographs of the victims. In his direct appeal, Mr. Strong raised claims of error relating to both the admission of several photographs of Ms. Washington and Zandrea at the scene and during the autopsies and the state's utilization of a computerized slide show of the photographs in its penalty phase closing argument. Strong, 142 S.W.3d at 720. Mr. Strong's claim in his direct appeal was that the prejudicial impact of these exhibits vastly outweighed their probative value as they were irrelevant and were admitted `solely to engender passion and prejudice' and because `their duplicative nature compounded the prejudice from each individual view.' Id. This Court first addressed the claim of error in the admission of the photographs during the penalty phase and relied upon its ruling that there was no error in admitting them in the guilt phase. Id. This Court noted that [t]he trial court has broad discretion in the admission of photographs and that [i]ts decision will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Id. at 715. The Court further reviewed the merits of Mr. Strong's claim that the trial court erred in allowing the admission of the computerized slide show and found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the slide slow: Strong contends the computerized slide show was more prejudicial than probative because it resulted in the jury's being bombarded with a host of graphic, color images. As Strong notes in his brief, the slide show depicted photographs of Eva and Zandrea before the events in question; Eva and Zandrea at the scene and during the autopsies; the butcher knife and [Strong's mug shot], superimposed on the other images. Nearly all of the photographs contained in the slide show were previously admitted, and those not admitted lacked prejudice as they merely contained innocuous photographs of the victims. Gruesome crimes produce gruesome, yet probative, photographs, and a defendant may not escape the brutality of his own actions. State v. Wolfe, 13 S.W.3d 248, 264 (Mo. banc 2000). Strong, 142 S.W.3d at 720-21. This Court further held that Mr. Strong did not establish that the slide presentation during closing argument prompted the jury to act other than on the basis of reason. Id. at 721. On appeal of the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, Mr. Strong asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of the photographs in the computerized slide show and argues that his counsel's failure to object resulted in plain error review in the direct appeal. This Court reviewed the merits of his claims of error in his direct appeal, and there was no indication that the review was limited to plain error. Id. at 720-21. Mr. Strong may not use post-conviction proceedings as a vehicle to obtain a second appellate review of matters raised on direct appeal. Wilkins v. State, 802 S.W.2d 491, 497 (Mo.banc1991). [8] As such, the motion court did not clearly err in denying Mr. Strong relief on this claim.