Jeffrey Weinhaus v. State of Missouri
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1041
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Movant Jeffrey Weinhaus was convicted in 2013 of felony possession of morphine, misdemeanor marijuana possession, first-degree assault of a law enforcement officer, and armed criminal action.
- Evidence at trial included a video from Movant's watch and testimony from State Troopers about threatening statements and Movant's actions during an arrest.
- Movant's home was searched after a warrant was obtained following a August 2012 interaction with law enforcement; items seized included drug paraphernalia, marijuana, morphine, scales, and video equipment.
- After trial, the defense challenged the State’s evidence and Movant was sentenced to concurrent terms, including 30 years for first-degree assault and 30 years for armed criminal action.
- Movant filed a Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call several witnesses, including forensic/video experts, to impeach trooper testimony.
- The motion court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding the record refuted Movant’s claims and showing no prejudice under Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did counsel err by not calling a crime-scene forensic expert? | Weinhaus argued expert could show video movements contradict trooper testimony. | State contends movements do not negate elements; not a viable defense. | No viable defense; no evidentiary hearing required. |
| Did counsel err by not calling FBI agents to testify about holster visibility? | Weinhaus claimed agents would refute holster placement on right hip. | Agents’ positions and distance make visibility unlikely; no elements negated. | No viable defense; no evidentiary hearing required. |
| Did counsel err by not calling Levi Weinhaus to testify about holster placement? | Weinhaus would testify holster was on left hip while driving, contradicting evidence. | Unclear availability and relevance to elements; not a viable defense. | No viable defense; no evidentiary hearing required. |
| Did counsel err by not calling a video expert to interpret Movant's words on video? | Byrne would testify Movant said a phrase other than the State alleges. | Video was already in evidence and counsel argued possible interpretations. | No viable defense; no evidentiary hearing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- McIntosh v. State, 413 S.W.3d 320 (Mo. banc 2013) (witness failure requires viable defense; strategy presumed reasonable)
- Matthews v. State, 175 S.W.3d 110 (Mo. banc 2005) (prejudice and proof required for evidentiary hearing)
- Whited v. State, 196 S.W.3d 79 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (impeachment alone does not yield relief unless it negates an element)
- Morrow v. State, 21 S.W.3d 819 (Mo. banc 2000) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance under Strickland)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (test for ineffective assistance requires prejudice)
- Price v. State, 422 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. banc 2014) (pleading standards for Rule 29.15 movants; prejudice shown by reasonable probability)
- Carter v. State, 955 S.W.2d 548 (Mo. banc 1997) (Strickland prejudice framework in Missouri post-conviction context)
- Taylor v. State, 382 S.W.3d 78 (Mo. banc 2012) (prejudice; reasonable probability of different outcome required)