Court Opinion

ID: 9654880
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:53:47.407637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:14.284201
License: Public Domain

RENDLEN, Senior Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority’s opinion but I write separately to define more clearly the issue of prejudice as espoused therein. The majority states: “Appellant alleges that he was ‘chilled’ from testifying by the potential conflict. This allegation is sufficient to justify reversal, on the present record.” Although State v. Burns, 322 S.W.2d 736 (Mo.1959), does state that neither a weighing of prejudice nor a specific showing of prejudice is required in cases of conflict of interest, this should not be interpreted by future defendants to mean that merely alleging a “chill” upon one’s right to testify is automatically found to be prejudice. Rather, the record must demonstrate there existed circumstances which *954merit the perceived “chill”. Allegations must be based upon the record for merit to be given to a defendant’s claim. Then and only then can the presumption of prejudice resulting from that “chilling” atmosphere be drawn.
Further, nothing contained in the majority’s opinion should be construed to interfere with the standards set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), concerning the finding of prejudice for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.