337 S.W.3d 95
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Borst was convicted in 2004 of multiple counts including first-degree statutory sodomy and incest, based on the daughter K.B.’s testimony and Borst’s admissions to DFS officials.
- The circuit court granted Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief on two grounds: failing to cross-examine Shelby about prior false accusations and failing to present medical/school records to impeach Shelby’s denial of diaper rash/medical issues.
- The post-conviction court set aside convictions on two sodomy and two incest counts and ordered a new trial.
- On appeal, the State challenged the post-conviction relief as unsupported by the record or law.
- The Missouri Western District Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating Borst’s convictions and denying post-conviction relief, holding the evidence did not prove ineffective assistance on either ground.
- Key evidence included K.B.’s in-person testimony corroborated by DFS witnesses and Borst’s own admissions; the medical testimony suggested alternative explanations for the physical findings unrelated to abuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to present medical/school records | Borst argues records would impeach or cast doubt on diaper rash/constipation claims | State contends no record evidence showed existence/content or necessity of records, and trial strategy supported not presenting them | Ground 14 failed; no showing records would have changed outcome; strategy reasonable |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to cross-examine Shelby about prior false accusations | Borst contends cross-exam would impeach Shelby and support Miller’s testimony | Trial strategy avoided reopening credibility issues that could harm defense; other evidence sufficed | Ground 2 failed; no prejudice; strategy reasonable and insufficient to overturn verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28 (Mo. banc 2006) (reasonable strategic choices immune from ineffectiveness claims)
- Morrow v. State, 21 S.W.3d 819 (Mo. banc 2000) (clear error standard for Rule 29.15 findings)
- Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2009) (prejudice and performance prongs require proof by preponderance)
- Dishmon v. State, 248 S.W.3d 656 (Mo. App. 2008) (trial strategy decisions may be reviewed for reasonableness)
- Clay v. State, 954 S.W.2d 344 (Mo. App. 1997) (strength of prosecution case affects prejudice analysis)
- McClendon v. State, 247 S.W.3d 549 (Mo. App. 2007) (impeachment must yield viable defense or affect outcome)
- Black v. State, 151 S.W.3d 49 (Mo. banc 2004) (impeachment value requires central, contested issue)