Opinion ID: 2546714
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Repeated Slide Show During Closing Argument of Penalty Phase

Text: Baumruk alleges that the motion court clearly erred by overruling his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to make a complete record of their objection to the repeated slide show shown to the jury during the State's closing argument. The repeated slide show, which Baumruk claims was prejudicial to him, consisted of 11 photographs. Each of the 11 photographs was admitted into evidence prior to the showing of the slide show. Four of the photographs were of Baumruk's wife, by herself or with one of her two daughters. Juxtaposed with these photographs were three pictures of Baumruk's wife slumped over in a courtroom chair with blood on her face and neck. There were three photographs of Baumruk's wife's grandchildren. Baumruk's counsel objected to these photographs prior to their admission on the grounds that they were improper victim impact evidence because the grandchildren in them were born after Baumruk's wife's death. The trial court overruled this objection. The final photograph was of Baumruk himself. During the State's closing argument, Baumruk's counsel objected to the slide show stating that he was sorry but: At this point, your Honor, I'm going to object. I want the record to reflect that while [the prosecuting attorney] is going through his closing argument there is a nice little slide show that's going on behind him that's showing various pictures of the victim's family, showing [Baumruk's wife], various State's exhibits that have been admitted into evidence, pictures of the courtroom. And I anticipate that they will keep on flashing up as he goes through closing argument. I would object to that, and I would at the very least want the record to reflect that this was going on. The court stated that the record would so reflect and asked the State if it had a response. The State responded: I didn't know if there was a legal objection, Your Honor. All I can say is these, every one of these exhibits is in evidence and has been available for the jury and they've all viewed them. The court overruled the objection and let the State proceed with its argument. Baumruk's counsel also included a claim in his motion for new trial that the trial court erred in overruling this objection. Baumruk claimed in his Rule 29.15 motion that reasonable counsel, who objected like his counsel did to the slide show, would have made the slide show part of the record. In overruling the claim, the motion court concluded that raising the issue on appeal would not have entitled Baumruk to relief. The motion court noted in its findings of facts that [it had] reviewed the photographs as they played during the closing portion of the State's case and finds no errors. [It also noted that it] reviewed the transcript of the State's closing argument and [found] the photographs corresponded with the victim impact portions of the presentation. While choreographing of words and photographs may not have been to [Baumruk's] satisfaction, from a review of the entire record, it is clear that the statements and photographs were supported by the evidence adduced at trial, were relevant and probative to the issues presented and did not prejudice [Baumruk]. Any further objection or preservation of the issue for appeal would not have resulted in [Baumruk] receiving relief. As the motion court correctly found, Baumruk's counsel could not be ineffective for failing to preserve a non-meritorious argument. Hunter, 840 S.W.2d at 870. Baumruk also claims the motion court clearly erred in overruling his claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue of the slide show on direct appeal. While [a] defendant is entitled to effective assistance of appellate counsel, appellate counsel has no duty to raise every possible issue asserted in the motion for new trial on appeal, and no duty to present non-frivolous issues where appellate counsel strategically decides to winnow out arguments in favor of other arguments. Storey v. State, 175 S.W.3d 116, 148 (Mo. banc 2005). In the current case, Baumruk's appellate counsel testified that she decided not to present this issue on appeal because she could not effectively argue that the trial court erred in allowing the slide show to be presented by the State. Because, [t]he trial court has discretion during the punishment phase of trial to admit whatever evidence it deems helpful to the jury in assessing punishment, State v. Strong, 142 S.W.3d 702, 720 (Mo. banc 2004) ( Strong I ), it is likely that Baumruk's counsel was correct in her assessment that such an argument would have been unsuccessful. In Strong I, this Court held that a similar slide show, consisting of photographs, nearly all of which were previously admitted, was not more prejudicial than probative and, therefore, [t]he trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the state to display a slide show to the jurors during the penalty phase. Id. at 721. In cases such as the current one, [g]ruesome crimes produce gruesome, yet probative, photographs, and a defendant may not escape the brutality of his own actions. Id. (internal quotations omitted). Baumruk's final claim regarding the slide show is that that the motion court clearly erred in overruling his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel without making findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues. However, the motion court's finding of fact on this claim is sufficient to permit appellate review and, therefore, does not violate Rule 29.15(j). Rule 29.15(j) requires a motion court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented pursuant to Rule 29.15(j). The rule, however, does not require the motion court to individually address every claim brought by the movant. Edwards, 200 S.W.3d at 513 (internal quotations omitted). Instead, [g]eneralized findings are sufficient so long as they permit the appellate court an adequate record for appellate review of movant's claims. Id. In this case, the motion court found that the trial court did not err by allowing the slide show to be played and also that any further objection or preservation of the issue for appeal would not have resulted in Baumruk obtaining relief. This is sufficient to preserve the error of whether appellate counsel was ineffective.