Mervin Branyon, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

3!ntbejffilissouri([ourtof~ppeaIs <!Eastern11Bistrict DIVISIONFOUR MERVINBRANYON, No.ED92229 Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) AppealfromtheCircuitCourtof theCityofSt.Louis CauseNo.0822-CCOO089 HonorableDavidMason Appellant, v. STATEOFMISSOURI,

Introduction MervinBranyon(Appellant)appealsfromthedenialofhisMissouriSupreme CourtRule29.15motionforpost-convictionrelieffollowinganevidentiaryhearingin theCircuitCourtoftheCityofSt.Louis.Appellantsoughttovacatehisconvictionsof onecountofattemptedfirstdegreestatutorysodomy,§ 564.0111,andonecountoffirst degreechildmolestation,§ 566.067.Weaffirm. FactualandProceduralBackground Viewedin thelightmostfavorabletotheverdict,theevidenceadducedat trial showedthefollowing: 1Allstatutoryreferencesareto RSMo2000,unlessotherwisenoted.

Appellantlivedwithhiswifeandfivechildren,oneofwhomwasC.B.,whoat thetimeoftheallegedincidentwas11yearsold.WhileC.B.wasinherroomAppellant walkedin andaskedif shewantedtoplay.Appellantstartedticklingherandafter approximatelyfiveminuteshetouchedC.B.'schestandalsotouchedhervaginaarea beneathherclothing.AppellantaskedC.B.tonottellanyoneoftheincident.Thenext morning,a cryingC.B.toldherbrotheroftheincident,shelatertoldhersisterand mother.MotherconfrontedAppellant,buthedeniedtheallegations.Policewerenot informedofthematteruntila yearlaterwhenthepolicewerecalledregardinga domestic disputebetweenC.B.andhersisters.AtthattimeC.B.toldthepoliceofficerdispatched totheirhouseaboutAppellant'sallegedactions. Attrialtherewasnophysicalevidence.Theevidenceconsistedofthetestimony ofC.B.,Appellant,C.B'sbrother,andlawenforcementofficerswhointerviewedC.B. NeartheendofthetrialAppellant'scounselaskedAppellantwhetherhehadeverbeenin troublebefore.Theprosecutor,oncross-examination,thenaskedaboutAppellant's arresthistoryandAppellantthenadmittedthathehadbeenarrestedforwhatherecalled as"assaultofa child." On22September2006Appellantwasfoundguiltybya juryofonecountof attemptedfirstdegreestatutorysodomyandonecountoffirstdegreechildmolestation. Appellantwassentencedto10yearsin theMissouriDepartmentofCorrections. Appellantfileda noticeofappealfromthetrialcourt'sjudgmentandsubsequently voluntarilydismissedthatappealandfileda motiontovacatehissentenceunderRule 29.15.ThemotioncourtdeniedAppellant'srequestforrelieffollowinganevidentiary hearing.Thisappealfollows. 2

PointsonAppeal Appellantfirstallegesthatthemotioncourterredin denyinghisrequestforpost- convictionreliefbecausedefensecounselwasineffectiveforfailingtoinvestigateand interviewEvaSpeightsandin failingtocallEvaSpeightsandShantellBranyonas witnesses.Second,Appellantallegesthatthemotioncourterredindenyinghisrequest forpost-convictionreliefbecausehisdefensecounselopenedthedoortoevidenceofhis priorarrestandforfailingtoadvisehimofthepotentialconsequencesofhisdecisionto testifyandthepossibilitythatthedoorcouldbeopenedto priorbadacts. StandardofReview A defendanthasreceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselif counselfailedto exercisethecustomaryskillanddiligenceofa reasonablycompetentattorneyunder similarcircumstances,andthisdeficientperformanceresultedin prejudicetothe defendant.Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,667-688(1984).Appellatereviewof themotioncourt'srulingis limitedtodeterminingwhetheritsfindingsoffactand conclusionsoflawareclearlyerroneous.Rule29.l5(k).Themotioncourt'sfindingsof factandconclusionsoflawareclearlyerroneousonlyif thereviewingcourt,having examinedtheentirerecord,is leftwiththedefiniteandfirmimpressionthata mistakehas beenmade.Rousanv.State,48S.W.3d576,581(Mo.banc2001) Discussion Appellantclaimsthathisdefensecounselwasineffectiveforfailingtocall witnesseswhoheallegescouldhaveprovidedhimwithexculpatorytestimony.During anevidentiaryhearingthemotioncourtheardthetestimonyofShantellBranyonwho testifiedthatshemetwithdefensecounselpriortothetrial.Duringhermeetingwith 3

counselsherecommendedthatEvaSpeightsshouldbeinterviewedbecausepreviously C.B.madeanaccusationtoSpeightsthatshehadbeenrapedbya homelessmanin the alley.Appellantallegesthattheprioraccusationwasfalse.Incertaincircumstances,it is permissiblefora defendanttointroduceextrinsicevidenceofpriorfalseallegations. Statev.Long,140S.W.3d27,31(Mo.banc2004).Howeverthepersonseekingto introducesuchtestimonymustdemonstratethatthepriorallegationinquestionwas,in fact,falseandthatheorsheknewthatit wasfalse.Statev.Couch,256S.W.3d64,69-70 (Mo.banc2008).Here,therewasnoproofthattheprioraccusationwasfalse.C.B. neverretractedheraccusation.Whilethepolicenotedthatthereweredifferentversions oftheaccusationthatdoesnot,in andofitself,provetheaccusationtobefalse.The motioncourtdeterminedthatthisdidnotconstitutea falseaccusation,andwedonot second-guessthemotioncourt'sdeterminationofwitnesscredibility.Statev.Dunmore, 822S.W.2d509,512(Mo.App.W.D.1991).Pointdenied. Appellant'ssecondclaimis thatdefensecounselwasineffectiveforopeningthe doortoevidenceofhispriorarrestandforfailingtoadvisehimofthepotential consequencesofhisdecisiontotestifyandthepossibilitythatthedoorcouldbeopened topriorbadacts.Evidenceofpriorarrestsis generallynotadmissibletoimpeachthe credibilityofa defendant.However,suchevidenceis admissibleif thedefendantopens uptheissueofpriorarrests.Statev.Thomas,878S.W.2d76(Mo.App.E.D.1994). Appellant'scounselopenedtheissueofpriorarrestswhenheaskedAppellantifhehad everbeenin trouble. Themotioncourtfoundthatwhiledefensecounsel'squestiontoAppellantwas inadvisable,aswasanyfailuretofullyadviseAppellantpriortotestifying,therewasno 4

reasonableprobabilitythattheresultattrialwouldhavebeendifferentif thismatterwas notdisclosedat trial.Thus,Appellantsufferednoprejudicefromdefensecounsel openingthedoortohispriorarrestbecausetheStatemadeonlya briefreferenceto the matter.Themotioncourt'sdecisionwasnotclearlyerroneous.Theevidenceof Appellant'sotherarrestwasnotemphasizedbytheprosecution.It wasnotalludedto againafterAppellant'stestimony,andit wasnotin theprosecution'sclosingargument. Additionally,therewassignificantcredibleevidenceofAppellant'sguiltat trialin the formofthetestimonyoftheotherwitnesses. Finally,therewasnoevidencein therecordto proveAppellant'sallegationthat hewasnotawareoftheconsequencesoftestifying.Appellantsufferednoprejudice. Pointdenied. Conclusion Themotioncourtdidnotclearlyerrin denyingAppellant'sRule29.15requestfor post-convictionrelief.Weaffirm. , GeorgeW.DraperIII,J.,concurs. KurtS.Odenwald,P.J.,dissentsinseparateopinion. 5

]ntbefflissouriQCourtof~ppeals QEastern1J.Bistrict DIVISIONFOUR MERVINBRANYON, No.ED92229 Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) AppealfromtheCircuitCourt oftheCityofSt.Louis CauseNo.0822-CCOO089 HonorableDavidC.Mason Appellant, vs. STATEOFMISSOURI,

I respectfullydissent.I wouldreverseandremandfora newtrialbecausethe motioncourtclearlyerredwhenit ruledMovantwasnotprejudicedbyhistrialcounsel's actions,whichopenedthedoortoallowingtheStatetointroduceotherwiseinadmissible evidenceofMovant'spriorarrest. Background Althoughthemajorityopinionaccuratelysummarizesthefactsofthiscase,the recitationoffactsis somewhatabbreviated,anddoesnotincludecertainmatterswhich aregermanetothisdissent.Movantwasconvictedofbothattempttocommitstatutory sodomyandchildmolestationfollowinga jurytrial.TheState'sevidenceconsistedof

testimonyfromVictim,Victim'sbrother(Brother),whois alsoMovant'sson,and OfficerRobertJauer(OfficerJauer).Movanttestifiedonhisownbehalf. Duringvoirdire,theStatediscussedwiththejurythevalueoftestimonial evidence.TheStatespecificallyquestionedindividualvenirepersonswhether testimonialevidencefromonewitnesswouldbesufficientforthemtosupporta conviction,orwhethertheywouldrequiretheStatetoproduceadditionalevidence,such asadditionalwitnesses,corroboratingtestimony,orphysicalevidence,inordertoreturn a verdictofguilty.TheStatefocuseda significantportionofitsvoirdireonthe credibilityofwitnesstestimony,inquiringasto whethertheprospectivejurorswouldbe abletoconvicta defendantbasedonthedeterminationofonewitness'scredibilityover another.TheStatespecificallyaskedtheprospectivejurorsif theywouldbeabletofind guiltbeyonda reasonabledoubtin a "he/said,she/said"situation. EvidencePresentedatTrial Theevidencepresentedat trialconsistedexclusivelyofwitnesstestimony.The followingtestimonialevidencerelevanttothisappealwasadducedat trial. A.Victim'sTestimony Victimtestified,thatonenightduringthesummerof2002,shewashomewith Movant,Brother,andheroldersisterwhilehermotherwasat work.Victimwaseleven yearsoldat thetimeandwasaloneinherbedroombeingpunished.Brotherwasin his roomthatevening,andtheoldersisterwassleepingin theirparents'bedroom.Victim testifiedthatMovantcameintoherbedroomandaskedherif shewantedto"play,"which sheexplainedusuallymeanthewouldtickleher.VictimstatedthatMovantbegan ticklingher,whichcontinuedforaboutfiveminutes.MovantthentoldVictim,"Ifyou 2

don'ttellnobody,I'llletyouoffpunishment."VictimtestifiedthatMovantthen"started feelingon[her]chest,"underhershirtandbra.VictimalsotestifiedthatMovant"went downin[her]pantsandstartedfeelingon[her]vaginaarea."VictimthentoldMovant thatshedidnotfeelgoodandthatshe"knewwhathewasdoing." Victimtestifiedthatthenextmorning,whichwasa Sunday,shetoldBrotherwhat happened.BrothertoldVictimtotelltheirmother.Insteadoftalkingtohermother, Victimtoldoneofhersistersthat"afriendof[hers]washavinga problem"and explainedthesituation.Afterhersisteradvisedthatsheshouldtell,Victimtoldhersister whathappenedandhersistertookherto theirmother.Victimtoldhermotherwhat happened,andmothercalledMovantat workandaskedhimabouttheincident.Victim wasnotwithhermotherasshespoketoMovantonthephone.MotherlatertoldVictim thatMovantdeniedtheincident.Noonecontactedanylawenforcementauthoritiesat thattime. Victimtestifiedthataftershetoldhermotherabouttheincident,herhomelife begantochange.Victimstartedrunningawaymoreand"everythinglikethat."More thana yearlater,Victimstatedthatshe"gotintoa realbigoldfightwith[her]sisters" andtheycalledthepolice.Whenthepolicecametoherhouse,Victimthentoldthe policeabouttheincidentthatoccurredwithMovantduringtheprioryear.Thepolice placeda hotlinecalltotheDivisionofFamilyServices(DFS)andVictimwastakeninto custody. VictimtestifiedthatshenevertoldBrotherorhermotherthattheincidentdidnot takeplace,butsaidthatshedidtellmothershewouldchangeherstoryin orderforher mothertohaveMovantback. 3

B.Brother'sTestimony Brothertestifiedthat,ona Sundaymorningduringthesummerof2002,Victim cametohim"abithysterical,"andtoldhimaboutanincidentwiththeirfather,Movant. Brothertestifiedthatat thattimehetoldVictim,"youarelying,daddydidnottouch you,"andthenheleftthehousetogotochurch.Brotheralsotestifiedthathetalkedto VictimseveraltimesabouttheincidentafterVictimfirstapproachedBrotherthatSunday morning.BrothertestifiedthatVictimtoldhimthatshewassorryforbreakingapartthe family,andalsotoldhimona numberofoccasionsthattheincidentwithMovantdidnot happen. C.OfficerJauer'sTestimony OfficerJauertestifiedthathewasa policeofficerin theSt.LouisCityPolice Departmentworkingwiththesexcrimes,childabuseunit.Inthespringof2004,hewas workingwiththechildabuseunitandhebecameinvolvedin Victim'scase.Officer Jauertestifiedthat,aftera DFShotlinereferralcamein regardingVictim,hespokewith theDFSinvestigatorandthenwentto Victim'sresidencetospeakwithher.Hetestified thatVictimtoldhimthatwhenshewaselevenyearsold,approximatelya yearanda half before,"shewasuplateonenightplayingin herroom,thateveryoneelsewasasleep exceptforherfather."OfficerJauerwentonto testifythatVictimtoldhim: . . ..Herdadcameintotheroom,askedherif shewantedtoplay. Shesaidthatshedid.Hethenaskedwhatshewantedtoplay.Shetold methatshelikedwhenherdadtickledher,sosheaskedherdadtotickle her. Shesaidwhileshewasbeingtickled,herdadtouchedherchest andherprivatearea. 4

OfficerJaueralsotestifiedthatVictimtoldhimthatwhenMovantwas "finishedtouchingherhesaidtoherthatif shedidn'ttellanyoneshewouldbeoff ofpunishment." D.Movant'sTestimony Movanttestifiedonhisownbehalfat histrialandspecificallydeniedtheincident withVictim.Movanttestifiedthatonthenightinquestionhereturnedhomefromtaking hiswifetoworkforhernightshift,andfoundVictimwatchingtelevision.Movant scoldedVictimandtoldhertogobacktobedbecauseherbedtimewas10p.m.onthe weekend.MovanttestifiedthathedidnotwrestlewithortickleVictimthatnight. Duringdirectexamination,Movantwasaskedbyhistrialcounsel(TrialCounsel), "Youhaven'tbeeninanytrouble?"to whichMovantreplied,"No."TrialCounselthen asked,"Thisis yourfirsttimetocourt?"andMovantreplied,"Yes,sir."Afterthis exchange,TrialCounselconcludedhisquestioningandtheprosecutoraskedtoapproach thebench,duringwhichthefollowingconversationtookplaceoutofthejury'spresence: [Prosecutor]:YourHonor,I wouldjustpointoutI believethat[Trial Counsel]openedthedoorin askinghim"Youhaven'tbeenin anytrouble before,haveyou,"andhehasbeen.He'sgotassaultthirdarrests. [TrialCounsel]:That'sanarrest. TheCourt:Sir,thatis theclassicopenthedoorquestion.Thescaleson evidenceinall50states,allfederalcircuits,a defendantis asked --andit's wideopen--everbeenin trouble. [TrialCounsel]:Allright.Justaskhim. TheCourt:Arrestscomein. AttheendoftheState'scross-examination,theprosecutoraskedMovant aboutanypriortrouble: 5

[Prosecutor]:Youdidmention,[Movant],thatyou'veneverbeenin troublebefore.Thisis theonlytimeyou'veeverbeenin trouble? [Movant]:Asfarascourtwise,yes. [Prosecutor]:Butyouhavebeenarrestedforassault;is thatcorrect? [Movant]:Assault? [Prosecutor]:Uh-huh.Summerof2003. [Movant]:Assault?Oh,okay.Thechildassault.Yes,I wasarrestedfor that. TrialCounseldidnotaskMovantanyfollow-upquestionsregardingtheassault arrestonre-directexamination,orotherwiseattempttorehabilitateMovant'stestimony andregardingthearrestforchildassault. ClosingArgument Duringclosingargument,theStateagaincalledthejury'sattentionto theissueof witnesscredibility,whichtheStateoriginallyraisedduringvoirdire.Theprosecutor arguedtothejurythat"thiswholecaseis thewordofa 16yearoldgirl."TheState specificallyreferredthejurybacktoitsquestioningduringvoirdire,noting,"Wespenta lotoftimeontestimonyandis testimonyalonesufficientforyoutoconvictthedefendant if youbelieveit beyonda reasonabledoubt.Is onewitnesssufficientforyouorwould yourequiremoreif youbelievethatwitnessbeyonda reasonabledoubt."TheStatewent ontoarguethatVictim'stestimonywasmorecredibleandshouldbebelievedoverthat ofMovant. MotionforPost-ConvictionRelief Followinghissentencingandappeal,Movantfileda MotiontoVacate,SetAside orCorrectJudgmentorSentenceandRequestforanEvidentiaryHearing(Motionfor 6

Post-ConvictionRelief).InhisMotionforPost-ConvictionRelief,MovantallegedTrial Counselwasineffectivefora numberofreasons,including"openingtothedoorto [M]ovant'spriorarrestbydirectquestioningonthematterwhileMovantwasonthe witnessstand." AnevidentiaryhearingwasheldonMovant'sMotionforPost-ConvictionRelief onMay16,2008.Movanttestifiedat theevidentiaryhearingregardinghispriorarrest andtheadmissionofthearrestat trial: [MotionCounsel]:Whenyoutalkedto[TrialCounsel]aboutwhetheror notyoushouldtestify,didhewarnyouthatif youdidtestifythefactthat youhadbeenarrestedbeforecouldcomeouttothejury? [Movant]:Thatwasnevermentioned. TheCourt:Well,I don'tknowif hecouldhaveevensaidit thatway.Let measkyouthis:Didhetellyouthathewasgoingtotrytogetoutto the jurythatyouhavelikea cleanrecord? [Movant]:No.Henevermentionedthat. TheCourt:Soyoudidn'tknowthathewasgoingtoaskyouquestions alongthelinesofhaveyoueverbeenin troublebeforeoranythinglike that? [Movant]:No.No.Weneverwentoveranythinglikethat,YourHonor. [MotionCounsel]:Sois it fairtosayyoudidn'tknowthatif you answeredthosequestionsthatyourpriorarrestswouldcomeup? [Movant]:Right. [MotionCounsel]:Andyoudidn'tknowthejurywouldknowaboutthat if youtestifiedthen? [Movant]:Right.Correct. Movantalsotestifiedthathispriorarrestwasa misdemeanorandnota sex offense.Thisclarificationasto thenatureofMovant'spriorarrestwasnotpresentedto 7

thejuryduringcross-examinationandtrialcounseldidnotengageinanyre-direct examinationofMovant.TheonlytestimonythejuryheardregardingMovant'sprior arrestwasthatMovanthadbeenarrestedforchildassaultin2003. TrialCounselalsotestifiedat Movant'smotionhearing,buthewasunableto recallanyspecificsofhisrepresentationofMovant.TrialCounseltestifiedhecouldnot locatehisfileonthecase.TrialCounselfurthertestified: [MotionCounsel]:Doyourememberwhen[Movant]tookthestandto testifyonhisownbehalf? [TrialCounsel]: Yes. [MotionCounsel]:Doyourememberthatoneofthequestionsthatyou askedhimwashadheeverbeenin troublebefore?Doyourecallthat question? [TrialCounsel]:No. [MotionCounsel]:Soyoudon'trecallthenthataskingthatquestion openedthedoortoa priorarrestofhis? [TrialCounsel]:No,I don't. [MotionCounsel]:Doyourecalltalkingto himaboutthepossibilityof thathappeningifhetestified? [TrialCounsel]:I don'thaveanyspecificrecollectionthismorningabout that. ThemotioncourtissueditsFindingsofFact,ConclusionsofLawandOrder (Judgment)denyingMovant'sMotionforPost-ConvictionReliefonOctober17,2008. WithregardtoMovant'sclaimthathisTrialCounselwasineffectiveforopeningthedoor toevidenceofMovant'spriorarrest,themotioncourtfoundthatTrialCounsel'squestion toMovantregardingprevious"trouble"and"thesubsequentfailuretoestablishthat Movantwasnotconvictedoftheoffense[was]inadvisable,aswasanyfailuretofully 8

adviseMovantpriortotestifying."However,themotioncourtfoundTrialCounsel's conductnotprejudicialbecausethecourtdid"notbelievethere[was]a reasonable probabilitythattheresultat trialwouldhavebeendifferentif thismatterwasnot disclosedat trial."ThecourtnotedthattheState'scross-examinationofMovantonthe matterwasbrief,theevidenceofMovant'spriorarrestwasnotemphasizedbytheState norwasit raisedin theState'sclosingargument,andtherewassignificantcredible evidenceofMovant'sguiltat trial. Discussion Forreliefbasedonclaimsofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,Movantmustshow bya preponderanceoftheevidencethat(1)hiscounselfailedtoexercisethecustomary skillanddiligenceofa reasonablycompetentattorneyundersimilarcircumstancesand (2)hiscounsel'sdeficientperformanceprejudicedhim.Andersonv.State,196S.W.3d 28,33(Mo.banc2006),citingStricklandv. Washington,466U.S.668,687-92(1984). Movantmustsatisfyboththeperformanceprongandtheprejudiceprongto prevailonan ineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaim.Workesv.State,751S.W.2d414,415(Mo.App. E.D.1988). InexaminingthefirstprongoftheStricklandtest,"[i]tis presumedthatcounsel's conductwasreasonableandeffective."Anderson,196S.W.3dat 33.Movantmust overcomea strongpresumptionthathistria1.counselprovidedcompetentrepresentation bydemonstratingthathiscounsel'srepresentation"fellbelowanobjectivestandardof reasonableness."Id."Reasonablechoicesoftrialstrategy,nomatterhowill-fatedthey appearin hindsight,cannotserveasa basisfora claimofineffectiveassistance."Id.;see 9

alsoRoperv.State,233S.W.3d744,746(Mo.App.S.D.2007)("Counselis not ineffectiveforpursuingreasonabletrialstrategy.") TosatisfythesecondprongoftheStricklandtestandproveprejudice,Movant mustdemonstratea reasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounsel'serrors,theresultofthe proceedingwouldhavebeendifferent.Anderson,196S.W.3dat 33.A "reasonable probability"is "aprobabilitysufficienttoundermineconfidencein theoutcome."Id.at 33-34. TrialCounselFailedtoExerciseCustomarySkillandDiligence Inhissecondpointonappeal,MovantclaimsthatTrialCounselfailedtoactasa reasonablycompetentattorneybecauseTrialCounsel'squestioningofMovantduring directexaminationpermittedtheStatetocross-examineMovantregardingotherwise inadmissibletestimonyofMovant'spriorarrest.MovantfurtherclaimsthatTrial CounselfailedtoadviseMovantregardinghisrightto testifyandtheperilsthereof. Specifically,MovantallegeshisTrialCounsel'sfailedtoinformhimofthepossibility thathispriorarrestscouldbeexposedto thejuryif Movanttestified.ButforTrial Counsel'squestioningofMovant,thejurywouldnothavelearnedthatMovanthada priorarrestfora "childassault."ButforTrialCounsel'sfailuretorehabilitateMovanton re-directexamination,thejurywouldhavelearnedthatMovant'spriorarrestfor"child assault"wasanarrestfora misdemeanor,didnotinvolveanyallegationsofsexualabuse, anddidnotresultin a convictionofanykind. I amtroubledbythemotioncourt'srejectionofMovant'sclaimsgiventherecord beforeus.Therecordis clearthattheoutcomeofthetrialnecessarilywouldbe predicatedonthejury'sassessmentofwitnesscredibility.Thepostureofthiscase,as 10

initiallyframedbytheStateduringvoirdireandunderscoredagainin closingargument, magnifiesthepotentialharmofTrialCounsel'sconductduringtrial. Aftera thoroughreviewoftheevidence,r amleftwithnooptionbuttoconclude thatMovant'sTrialCounselwasineffectivebyfailingtoexercisethecustomaryskilland diligenceofa reasonablycompetentattorneyundersimilarcircumstancesbyallowing evidenceofMovant'spriorarresttobeintroducedat trial,andthenfailingtomakeany attempttomitigatethepotentialdamagetoMovant'scredibilitycausedbysuchevidence. It is wellestablishedthatevidenceofa defendant'spriorarrestsis generallynot admissibletoimpeacha defendant'scredibility.Statev. Movers,266S.W.3d272,280 (Mo.App.W.D.2008).Suchevidenceis admissible,however,if thedefendanthas "openedup"theissueofpriorarrests.rd.Oncea defendantintroducesevidenceofhis owngoodcharacterat trial,hemaybeimpeachedwithhispriorarreststo testhisgood characterandcredibilityasa witness.rd.Whena defendanttestifiesthathehasnever beenin "trouble,"heopensthedoortopriorarrestsandearlieractsofmisconduct.State v.Collier,892S.W.2d686,690(Mo.App.W.D.1994).SeealsoStatev.Macon,547 S.W.2d507,514(Mo.App.1977)("Wherethedefendantindirectexamination voluntarilyopensupthesubjectthatheis a personofgoodcharacterandtestifiesthathe hasneverbeeninany'trouble'beforeandhenceis lesslikelytocommita crimethana personnotofgoodcharacter,it is permissibleforthestatetoattempttoimpeachthe defendant'seffortstopresenttothejurya recordofpreviousgoodconductbyshowing priorarrestsorcriminalchargesforthepurposeoftesting(a)whetherhetruthfullyis a personofgoodcharacterand(b)histrustworthinessandcredibilityasa witnessin his ownbehalf."). 11

FollowingTrialCounsel'sexaminationofMovantregardingtheallegationsof sexualabusemadebyVictim,TrialCounselaskedMovanttheonequestionevery criminaldefenseattorneyknowsnottoaskshouldthedefendanthavepriorarreststhe defensewishestokeepfromthejury: [TrialCounsel]:Youhaven'tbeenin anytrouble? [Movant]:No. [TrialCounsel]:Thisis yourfirsttimetocourt? [Movant]: Yes,sir. TrialCounselconcludedhisdirectexaminationofMovantwiththisexchange. TheStateimmediatelysoughttointroduceevidenceofMovant'spriorarrestclaiming thatTrialCounsel"openedthedoor"toMovant'spriorarrestsbyaskingthequestion aboutprior"trouble."Thetrialcourtagreed,pointingout,"Sir,thatis theclassicopen thedoorquestion.Thescalesonevidenceinall50states,allfederalcircuits,a defendant is asked --andit'swideopen--everbeenin trouble."Thus,thetrialcourtruledtoallow priorarrestsintoevidence. TheStatethencross-examinedMovantregardingtheallegationsofabusemade byVictim.AttheendoftheState'scross-examination,theprosecutorraisedtheissueof Movant'spriorarrest: [Prosecutor]:Youdidmention,[Movant],thatyou'veneverbeenin troublebefore.Thisis theonlytimeyou'veeverbeenin trouble? [Movant]:Asfarascourtwise,yes. [Prosecutor]:Butyouhavebeenarrestedforassault;is thatcorrect? [Movant]:Assault? [Prosecutor]:Uh-huh.Summerof2003. 12

[Movant]:Assault?Oh,okay.Thechildassault.Yes,I wasarrestedforthat. Onre-directexamination,TrialCounseldidnotaskMovantanyadditional questionsregardingthearrest.Therecordis clearthatTrialCounselmadenoeffortto rehabilitateMovant'stestimonywithinformationthathispriorarrestwasforanalleged misdemeanor,didnotinvolveallegationsofsexualabuse,anddidnotresultina guilty pleaorconviction,butwasinsteaddismissed.Contrarytohistestimonythathehas neverbeenin trouble,thelastwordsjurorsheardfromMovantat trialwasthathehad beenarrestedfora childassault.Thepotentialimpactofthesewordsis obvious. Movanttestifiedat hismotionhearingthatTrialCounselneverdiscussedwith himorwarnedhimthat,shouldhetestifyonhisownbehalf,hispriorarrestscould possiblybepresentedtothejury.MovanttestifiedthatTrialCounseldidnottellhimthat hewasgoingtoattempttodemonstrateto thejurythatMovanthada cleanrecord. MovanttestifiedhewasunawarethatTrialCounselwasgoingtoaskhimquestions regardinganypriortrouble,andhadnoknowledgethat,if heansweredsuchquestions,he couldbequestionedconcerninghispriorarrest.Atthemotionhearing,TrialCounsel wasunabletorememberanyparticularsordetailsofhisrepresentationofMovant,and wasunabletorefuteanyofMovant'sclaims. InitsOrderdenyingMovant'sMotionforPost-ConvictionRelief,themotion courtacknowledgedthedeficienciesinTrialCounsel'srepresentation,andfoundthat "Trial[C]ounselopenedtheissueofpriorarrestswithhisquestion'Youhaven'tbeenin anytrouble.'"ThemotioncourtfurtherfoundthatTrialCounsel'squestionregarding priortrouble,andhissubsequentfailuretoestablishthatMovantwasnotconvictedfor theoffense,was"inadvisable,aswasanyfailure[byTrialCounsel]tofullyadvise 13

Movantpriortotestifying."However,themotioncourtalsoconcludedthatMovantwas notprejudicedbyTrialCounsel'srepresentationandfoundthattherewasno"reasonable probabilitythattheresultat trialwouldhavebeendifferentif thismatterwasnot disclosedat trial."Afternotingthatthecross-examinationofMovantwasbriefandthat theevidenceofMovant'spriorarrestwasnotemphasizedbytheStateorraisedin the State'sclosingargument,themotioncourtfoundthattherewas"significantcredible evidenceofMovant'sguiltat trial." I findthemotioncourt'scharacterizationofTrialCounsel'sactionsas "inadvisable"failstosufficientlyaddressthegravityofTrialCounsel'sconduct,andthe correspondingpotentialnegativeimpactonMovant'sdefenseagainstthecriminal chargesforwhichhewastried.TrialCounsel'srepresentationofMovantwasinadequate andfellbelowstandardsofa reasonablycompetentattorneyundersimilarcircumstances. Anderson,196S.W.3dat 33.Accordingly,whetherthemotioncourt'sjudgmentshould bereversedoraffirmedis whollydependentuponananalysisoftheprejudiceresulting fromTrialCounsel'sconduct. MovantWasPreiudicedbvTrialCounsel'sActions Examiningtherecordandevidencepresentedat Movant'strial,thereis nodispute thattheoutcomeoftheState'sprosecutionofMovantrestedonthecredibilityofthe witnesses.AlthoughBrotherandOfficerJaueralsopresentedtestimonyat trial,I believe therecordbeforeusdemonstratesthiscaseto bea classic"hesaid/ shesaid"scenario wherethedeterminationofguiltis dependentonthecredibilityofthevictimandalleged perpetrator.TheState'sextensivevoirdireontheissueofwitnesscredibilitystrongly supportssucha conclusion. 14

Here,Victimtestifiedaboutthedetailsof theallegedincidentandOfficerJauer recitedthestatementsVictimmademorethana yearafterthetimetheallegedincident occurred;therewasnoothercorroboratingevidencepresentedbytheStatetosupport Victim'sallegations.AlthoughBrothertestifiedVictimtoldhimoftheincidentthenext morning,healsotestifiedthatVictimlatertoldhimshewasnottellingthetruth.The allegedabusewasnotreportedtoanyauthoritiesat thetimeoftheallegedincident.The circumstancesunderwhichVictimtoldauthorityabouttheincidentalsoraisesome concern. -Victimfirsttoldauthoritiesabouttheallegedincidentoneandonehalfyears aftertheallegedoccurrence,andthen,onlyin theheatofa familyquarrel.Attrial,no physicalevidenceoftheallegedcrimewaspresented,nordidtheStatepresentany eyewitnessorcorroboratingwitnesstestimony.Ontheotherhand,Movanttestifiedthat theincidentneveroccurred,andthathehadpunishedVictimbysendinghertoherroom priortohertellingBrotheroftheallegations.BrothertestifiedthatVictimadmittedto fabricatingtheincident. TheevidencepresentedtothejuryofMovant'sguiltwasprimarilyVictim's testimony.Thejurywaslefttodetermineguiltbaseduponontherelativecredibilityof thewitnesses,includingbothVictimandMovant.Thelimitedevidencepresentedat trial leavesinsurmountablechallengesinassessingtheeffectthatevidenceofMovant'sprior arrestonchargesof"childassault"hadonthejury'sconsiderationofMovant's credibility,a centraltenetofthiscase.ThelastwordsjurorsheardfromMovantat trial wasthathehadbeenpreviouslyarrestedfora childassault.It is reasonabletoconclude thatevidenceofMovant'spriorarrestfor"childassault"couldaffectthejury's deliberationofMovant'scredibilityandguilt.Significanttomyanalysisofprejudiceis 15

notonlythetestimonythatMovanthada priorarrest,butthatthedescriptionofthat arrestwassufficientlyvagueandundefinedsoas toallowunbridledspeculationin the mindsofthejurorsastothepriorbadactsofMovant.TheprejudiceflowingfromTrial Counsel'squestioningmighthavebeenmitigatedhadMovant'spriorarrestbeen describedassomethingotherthanchildassault,orhadTrialCounselundertakenany effortto rehabilitateMovantbyelicitingtestimonythatthepriorarrestdidnotinvolve allegationsofsexualabuse,wasfora misdemeanor,anddidnotleadtoanyprosecution. HadTrialCounselrehabilitatedMovant'stestimonywithanyofthefactspresentedat the Movant'smotionhearing,evidenceofMovant'spriorarrestwouldnothavepresented thesamepotentialimpactonthejury'sdeterminationofMovant'scredibility,and consequentlyhisguilt. Giventhepredominantroleoftheissuesofwitnesscredibilityat trial,thelackof non-testimonialevidenceavailableat trial,andthehighlyprejudicialnatureoftheprior arrest,ascharacterized,tothejury,I disagreewiththeconclusionreachedbymotion courtandthemajorityopinionofthisCourtthattherewasnoreasonableprobabilitythe resultat trialwouldhavebeendifferentif thismatterwasnotdisclosedat trial.Tothe contrary,uponreviewoftheentirerecord,I concludethereis a "reasonableprobability" that,butforTrialCounsel'serrors,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeen different.SeeAnderson,196S.W.3dat 33. TheStatereliesonthecaseofStatev. Johnson,841S.W.2d298(Mo.App.S.D. 1992),in maintainingthatMovantsufferednoprejudicefromTrialCounsel'sactions. WhiletheStatecorrectlyarguesthatmanyofthedefendant'strialcounsel'sactionsin Johnsonaresimilartothosein thiscase,thefactsrelevantto theconvictionsofthe 16

respectivedefendants,includingthestrengthoftheevidencebeforetherespectivejuries, areclearlydistinguishable.InJohnson,thedefendantwaschargedwithattempted forciblerapeafteranincidentwhereheattacked,beat,andattemptedtorapea femalein hishome.Id.at 299.Whilethedefendantwastestifyingat histrial,histrialcounsel askedhim,"Haveyoubeenin troublebeforewiththelawonanything-ever?"Id.at 301.Thedefendantrespondedthathepleadedguiltytoa second-degreeburglarycharge whenhewasseventeen-years-oldandhadbeenplacedonprobation.Id.Oncross- examination,theprosecutorthenaskedthedefendant,"Haveyouhadanyothertrouble withthelaw?"Id.Inoverrulingdefensecounsel'sobjection,thetrialcourtnoted,"You [defensecounsel]askedifhehadtroublewiththelaw,notifhehadconvictions."Id. Thedefendantthenrespondedthathehadbeenarrestedin1977and1985.Id.The defendantclaimedin hismotionforpost-convictionreliefthathewasdeniedhis constitutionalrightstoeffectiveassistanceofcounselbecausetheprosecutorwas permittedtoelicittestimonyabouthispriorunrelatedarrests,whichwouldhave otherwisebeeninadmissiblein theabsenceofhistrialcounsel's"troublewiththelaw" question.Id.Themotioncourtfoundthedefendantwasnotprejudicedbyhistrial counsel'squestioning.Id.TheSouthernDistrictaffirmedthemotioncourt'sfinding, notingthat: Thecross-examinationof[thedefendant]wasbrief,thequestionswereat thebeginningofthestate'scross-examinationof[thedefendant],andthe questionswerelimitedinscope.Theevidenceof[thedefendant's]other arrestswasnotemphasizedbythestate,andit wasnotalludedtoagainin anywitness'stestimonyorin thestate'sclosingargument. Id.at301-02. 17

I acknowledgethesimilaritiesbetweenJohnsonandthecasebeforeus,in particulartheState'srestraintinnotemphasizingthearrestinitsclosingargument.I note that,asinJohnson,thecross-examinationofMovantregardingthearrestwasbrief,the evidencewasnotemphasizedbytheState,thearrestwasnotalludedtoinanyother witness'stestimony,andthearrestwasnotmentionedin theState'sclosingargument. However,thesignificantfactualdifferencesbetweenJohnsonandthiscasewarrant differentoutcomes. First,in Johnson,thearrestselicitedbytheStateasa resultofthedefendant'strial counsel's"openingthedoor"wereunrelatedto thecrimesprosecutedat trial,werenot similartothecrimeforwhichthedefendantwasbeingtried,andoccurredseveralyears priortothecrimeprosecutedat trial.Here,notonlywasthearrestclosein timeto the crimebeingprosecuted(thechildassaultarrestwasin thesummerof2003, approximatelyoneyearaftertheprosecutedcrimes),butthearrestwascharacterizedat trialasbeingofthesamenatureofthecrimesforwhichMovantwasontrial.Movant testifiedhewasarrestedforchildassaultduringhistrialforstatutorysodomyandchild molestation.TrialCounselmadenoattempttorehabilitateMovantbyintroducing testimonythatthearrestdidnotinvolveanyclaimsofsexualassaultorabuse.Theclose relationofthecrimesprosecutedandthearrestadmittedasa directresultofTrial Counsel'sopeningthedoortotheintroductionofsuchevidencesubstantiallyincreasethe likelihoodthatthejurywouldconsidertheMovant'sarrestforchildassaultwhen deliberatingMovant'scredibilityandguilt. Second,theevidenceofguiltpresentedat thedefendant'strialinJohnsonwas muchstrongerthantheevidencepresentedin thiscase.InJohnson,the"[e]videnceto 18

supporttheconvictionwasstrong."Theevidenceincludedtestimonythatafterthe incidentwiththedefendant,thevictimrantoa neighbor'shousewhoprovidedfirstaid andcalledlawenforcement.Bloodwasfoundonthevictim'sclothing.Theneighbors testifiedthatthevictimwascoveredin bloodandtoldthemshehadbeenbeatenand raped.Medicalevidenceofvictim'streatmentat a hospitalwaspresented.Id.at 299, 302.Moreover,thedefendanttestifiedat histrialandadmittedbeatingthevictim,noting thathe"hadexpectedtohaveconsensualsexualrelations."Id.at 299.Incontrast,here, notonlydidMovantdenyVictim'sallegations,buttheonlyevidenceofMovant'sguilt presentedbytheStatewasVictim'sstatement,whichBrothercalledintoquestion,and OfficerJauer'stestimonyregardingVictim'sreportingoftheincidenta yearanda half afterit allegedlyoccurred. Theevidencepresentedat trialwashighlydependentuponthejuror'sassessment ofcredibilityoftheVictimandMovant.Withoutmoresubstantialevidence,it is much morelikelyhere,thaninJohnson,that"openingofthedoor"toMovant'spriorarrestfor "childassault"wouldinfluencethejury. Finally,andperhapsmostimportantly,in Johnson,thedeterminationofguiltdid notrestsolelyonthecredibilityofthewitnesses.Substantialadditionalevidencewas presentedinJohnsononwhichthejurycouldrelytoconvictthedefendantofthecrimes charged.Inthiscase,however,thedeterminationofguiltrestedsolelyonthecredibility ofthewitnesses -primarilyVictimandMovant.Fromthebeginningofthetrial,starting withvoirdire,theStateframeditsprosecutionofMovantasa casedependentonthe credibilityofthewitnesses.TheStatesubsequentlyclosedthetrialwiththesame argument,notingthatthecaserestsonthecredibilityofthewitnesses.Giventhenature 19

ofthiscase,andtheemphasisplacedthroughoutthetrialoncredibility,it is difficultfor metoconcludethattheevidenceelicitedregardingMovant'spriorarrestfor"child assault"didnotnegativelyimpactthejury'sassessmentofMovant'scredibility.Given thesignificantdifferencesfromthefactualscenariopresentedin Johnson,I donotfind Johnsoninstructive. ThisCourtmustconsidertheoverallcircumstanceswhendeterminingwhether TrialCounsel'sperformance,whichopenedthedoorto theadmissionofevidenceof Movant'spriorarrest,hasunderminedourconfidencethatjusticewasdonein the proceeding.Gardnerv.State,96S.W.3d120,131(Mo.App.W.D.2003)."Weareable tograntreliefonlyiftheentirerecordrevealsthatdefendantwasprejudiced."Id. (internalquotationsomitted).Here,theevidencewaslessthancertainastowhat,if anything,actuallyhappenedthatnightduringthesummerof2002betweenMovantand Victim.Althoughtherewasevidencefromwhicha jurycouldhaveconcludedMovant molestedVictim,suchevidencewasfarfromoverwhelmingandwashighlydependent uponthejury'sassessmentofcredibility.I believethatthedecisiontoaskMovantabout prior"trouble,"thusopeningthedoorfortheStatetobringintoevidencehispriorarrest for"childassault,"andthesubsequentfailuretorehabilitateMovantregardingthenature ofthearrestwaspotentiallypivotalin thejury'sdeliberationandconsiderationof Movant'scredibilityandguilt.I donotallegeTrialCounsel'sperformancewasdeficient inallrespectsorthatTrialCounsellackedskillin thedefenseofthismatter.Trial Counselis clearlyanexperienceddefenseattorneyandshowedanabilityto presenta viabledefenseforMovantinthiscase.However,it isequallyclearthatTrialCounsel openedthedoortoallowingMovant'spriorarrestfor"childassault"asevidencebefore 20

thejuryandthenfailedtoattempttorehabilitateMovantbeforethejuryonthatevidence. Becauseoftheuniquecircumstancesofthiscase,I believethat,butforthemistakeby TrialCounsel,thereis a reasonableprobabilitythattheresultofthetrialwouldhavebeen different.Giventhetotalityofthefactsofthiscase,I cannotbeconfidentin thetrial havingachieveda justresult. Forthesereasons,I amleftwiththedefiniteandfirmimpressionthata mistake hasbeenmadeandthatthemotioncourt'sfindingthatMovantwasnotprejudicedby TrialCounsel'sconductwasclearlyerroneous.I wouldreversethemotioncourt's judgmentdenyingpost-convictionrelief,andremandthiscasetothetrialcourtwith directionstovacatetheconvictionsandtoaffordMovanta newtrial. kA--IJ~ KurtS.Odenwald,PresidingJudge 21