Opinion ID: 1464908
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Object of Trial Counsel and Related Errors

Text: During the penalty phase, defense counsel called Mr. Middleton's brother-in-law, Paul Oglesbee, who was married to Mr. Middleton's sister Rose, to describe the symptoms that he observed Mr. Middleton display when Mr. Middleton was a user of methamphetamine. On cross-examination, the state, attempting to show that Mr. Middleton continued to be aggressive even after he stopped using methamphetamine, questioned Mr. Oglesbee about a letter that Mr. Middleton wrote the Oglesbees that contained the phrase, P.S. She'll write or I'll sell this address. During cross-examination, Mr. Oglesbee testified that he believed that Mr. Middleton meant this phrase to be a threatthat he was putting a contract on us for a hit. Mr. Middleton contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying multiple claims related to the prosecution's use of the letter. First, he argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Mr. Oglesbee's testimony that he and his wife thought the phrase meant that Mr. Middleton was going to place a hit on them. Much of his argument presupposes that the phrase did not constitute a threat. Clearly, however, Mr. Oglesbee believed it was a threat. In considering capital punishment, the jury is entitled to a wide range of helpful information. State v. Morrow, 968 S.W.2d 100, 114-15 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 896, 119 S.Ct. 222, 142 L.Ed.2d 182 (1998). See also State v. Gilyard, 979 S.W.2d 138, 143 (Mo. banc 1998). The decision to impose the death penalty ... is the most serious decision society makes about an individual, and the decision-maker is entitled to any evidence that assists in that determination. State v. Debler, 856 S.W.2d 641, 656 (Mo. banc 1993). Evidence that Mr. Middleton made such a threat was relevant and admissible on the issue of defendant's character. See State v. Clay, 975 S.W.2d 121, 132 (Mo. banc 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1085, 119 S.Ct. 834, 142 L.Ed.2d 690 (1999). Second, Mr. Middleton alleges counsel was ineffective for failing to refute Mr. Oglesbee's testimony by calling Brian Fifer, who was a fellow inmate of Mr. Middleton's when Mr. Middleton was incarcerated in Iowa. He alleges that Mr. Fifer would have testified that the phrase I'll sell this address is not a threat, but is merely jailhouse slang for if you don't write me back, I will not continue to write you. This claim is also without merit. As this Court ruled in rejecting an identical claim on appeal of denial of relief in the Callaway County case: Defendant [Mr. Middleton] introduced no evidence that he told, or that his counsel should have known, that sell this address was not a threat. Without knowing (or being told by defendant) that the phrase had unique meaning among prisoners, counsel had no reason to question other prisoners. Counsel was not ineffective for not finding this witness [Brian Fifer]. Middleton, 80 S.W.3d at 810. Here, also, Mr. Middleton has offered no evidence that he told counsel that sell this address was not a threat or that he informed counsel about the existence of Mr. Fifer and the latter's ability and willingness to testify. Accordingly, the court did not err in finding counsel was not ineffective in failing to call Mr. Fifer. Third, Mr. Middleton claims that the letter constituted non-statutory aggravating circumstances that he should have had prior notice of, but was not informed of until the day of Mr. Oglesbee's testimony, and therefore it should not have been admitted. This constitutes a claim of trial error in admission of the document. Such claims must be raised on direct appeal and are not cognizable in a post-conviction motion. State v. Carter, 955 S.W.2d 548, 555 (Mo. banc 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1052, 118 S.Ct. 1374, 140 L.Ed.2d 522 (1998). Finally, perhaps because he is aware of this rule, Mr. Middleton also alleges that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on appeal that he was prejudiced by the prosecution's late disclosure of the letter. But, the trial judge addressed this issue and determined that the letter was timely disclosed as soon as the prosecution received it and that defense counsel had been made aware of the letter and its contents during the Oglesbees' depositions. Mr. Middleton offers no reason why the trial judge's determination of timely disclosure was erroneous and, if raised, would have led to reversal.
Mr. Middleton claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to certain statements by the prosecution in penalty phase opening statement and closing argument, and to the testimony of certain penalty phase witnesses, that referred to the murders of Mr. Hamilton and Ms. Hodge. He argued that this argument and testimony was inadmissible and improper because he had not yet been convicted of the Hamilton and Hodge murders at the time of his trial for the murder of Mr. Pinegar. On direct appeal, Mr. Middleton claimed error in overruling his counsels' objection to admission of other evidence of the Hamilton and Hodge murders. [6] This Court rejected that argument, holding: The evidence in question was used to help the jury to understand the prior acts of Middleton for the purpose of determining punishment for the murder of Pinegar. See [ State v. ] Parker, 886 S.W.2d [908] at 924 [(Mo. banc 1994) ]; State v. Leisure, 749 S.W.2d 366, 378-79 (Mo. banc 1988). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d at 463. Similarly, here, the evidence that Mr. Middleton now says counsel should have objected to was relevant to defendant's character and was admissible on that basis. See, e.g., Morrow, 968 S.W.2d at 114-15. Counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make a meritless objection. Clay, 975 S.W.2d at 136.
Mr. Middleton also argues trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to a series of answers given by defense expert Dr. Lipman during cross-examination by the prosecutor, relating to whether Dr. Lipman believed defendant's statements made to him during an interview Dr. Lipman conducted during psychiatric testing of Mr. Middleton, because they required the expert to usurp the role of the jury in determining witness credibility. Dr. Lipman said that he believed that He was lying aboutin my opinionthe things that he was doing at the times those killings occurred.... While counsel did not object to admission of this testimony at trial, counsel did object to similar testimony by another expert, Dr. Murphy, that the doctor thought Mr. Middleton was lying when discussing the murders. This Court found no error in admission of this evidence because it concerned Mr. Middleton's truthfulness in answering the doctor's questions, not his truthfulness at trial. This Court noted that counsel for defendant had opened the door to this testimony by eliciting testimony on direct examination that Dr. Murphy did not see any evidence of malingering or faking when interviewing Mr. Middleton. The judge, therefore, properly permitted the state to explore the doctor's opinions about Mr. Middleton's truthfulness on cross-examination. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d at 458-59. Here, counsel did not object to the admission of similar cross-examination of Dr. Lipman, but had counsel done so the result would have been the same. Because the testimony did not concern Mr. Middleton's veracity at trial but rather Dr. Lipman's assessment of whether he believed what he was told during psychological testing, and because defense counsel opened the door to such evidence by asking about Mr. Middleton's credibility, it was a proper subject of cross-examination, and counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to it. Id.; State v. Barnett, 980 S.W.2d 297, 307 (Mo. banc 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1161, 119 S.Ct. 1074, 143 L.Ed.2d 77 (1999). Wide latitude is afforded the cross-examination of witnesses to test qualifications, credibility, skill or knowledge, and the value and accuracy of the expert's opinion. State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479, 493 (Mo. banc 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 957, 118 S.Ct. 2379, 141 L.Ed.2d 746 (1998).