Opinion ID: 2168156
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Improper Opening Statement

Text: Forrest argues the motion court clearly erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on the claim trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State's improper personalization in the opening statement of the penalty phase. Forrest alleges he pleaded facts showing entitlement to relief and he was prejudiced.
In the opening statement of the penalty phase, the State made the following comments: In the case that you will hear and the evidence that we will present or have already presented, I believe that we  that  that the following statutory aggravating circumstances you will find proven beyond a reasonable doubt. With regard to Michael Wells, as you might imagine, one of the statutory aggravating circumstances I think the evidence has shown and will show is that the murder of Michael Wells was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of another unlawful homicide, that being of Harriett Smith. I think you will find  it will be my position and that the evidence will show that the aggravating circumstances are proven. Forrest argued in the post-conviction petition that the arguments were objectionable as improper expressions of personal opinion and personal knowledge without evidentiary basis.
The motion court dismissed the claim without an evidentiary hearing because the facts alleged did not entitle Forrest to relief and he was not prejudiced.
The motion court did not err in denying the evidentiary hearing as Forrest's alleged facts do not warrant relief. Admissible evidence may be referred to in an opening statement if a good faith basis exists. White v. State, 939 S.W.2d 887, 902 (Mo. banc 1997). The use of the word I in an argument is not automatically an impermissible personalized argument. State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886, 897 (Mo. banc 1995). A review of the entire opening statement shows the arguments were based on admissible evidence and the State did not improperly personalize the opening statement by using the word I. Forrest has also not shown prejudice resulted from the comments. The motion court did not err. Forrest is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The point is denied.