Fourth murder trial ordered for PB man in shooting death of his father

WEST PLAINS — A former Poplar Bluff man will stand trial for the fourth time in October in Howell County for the 2003 shooting death of his father.

Shawn Curtis Hanna was granted a new trial in July 2018 by Judge William Hickle after having served nearly 10 years of a life without parole sentence on a Class A felony of first-degree murder conviction.

Hickle’s judgement subsequently was affirmed in October by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District.

The 41-year-old again will be tried Oct. 6-9 in Howell County for the Nov. 16, 2003, shooting death of his 56-year-old father, Ralph Hanna.

The elder Hanna was shot once as he was returning to his Ellsinore home from an early morning hunting trip.

An autopsy showed the elder Hanna died instantly from a single gunshot wound to the left side of his chest from a high-velocity bullet.

His son was convicted in December 2010 by a Howell County jury and sentenced to life without the possibility of probation or parole in February 2011. Two earlier jury trials in Carter County ended in hung juries.

Post-conviction relief sought

After his conviction, Hanna sought post-conviction relief and filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his judgement and sentence.

Court documents say Hanna alleged he received ineffective assistance from both his trial and appellate attorneys and cited six claims in his motion.

He alleged his trial attorneys failed to call two witnesses, both of whom’s testimony would have been “crucial” to his defense.

One witness, Jesse Cates, now deceased, reportedly could have contradicted the state’s allegation that after Hanna shot and killed his father, he was driven to his car by his mother and codefendant, Denise Hanna, before emergency personnel were called to the scene.

Cates, who lived near the Hannas on Highway N, reportedly testified on three prior occasions, and his third testimony was inconsistent at Denise Hanna’s trial. Denise Hanna is serving a life sentence after being convicted by a Carter County jury of second-degree murder and armed criminal action.

Had Cates testified at Hanna’s 2010 trial, Hanna alleged Cates could have helped cast reasonable doubt on the timeline of events asserted by the state.

Hanna claimed his attorneys also were ineffective for not interviewing, investigating, subpoenaing or calling Nanya Black, who also lived near the Hannas, to testify at his trial.

Black, according to court documents, was one of two people who heard the shot that apparently killed the elder Hanna.

One witness, who testified at Hanna’s trial, reported hearing the shot at 8 a.m.

Black was never contacted by the defense prior to Hanna’s 2010 trial, but, during the investigation, she reportedly told officers the shot was fired at 8:30 a.m.

Hanna also alleged his constitutional rights were denied because his trial attorneys did not seek a mistrial after a juror indicated her verdict was “not guilty,” and the jury was instructed to continue its deliberations. The jury later returned with a guilty verdict.

An evidentiary hearing subsequently was held before Hickle, who later denied all of Hanna’s claims, except the claim involving Black.

In his opinion, Hickle wrote, “(Hanna’s) trial counsel failed to interview, investigate or subpoena Ms. Black as a witness, and in the process, deprived (him) of an important and viable defense.”

Hanna’s attorney, Hickle further said, had no “strategic reason” for failing to have Black testify, as the woman was available had she been called to do so.

“(Hanna) was prejudiced by trial counsel’s ineffectiveness, and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the trial would have been different,” Hickle wrote.

In granting Hanna “relief” under the claim Hanna’s attorneys were ineffective for not calling Black to testify, Hickle ordered Hanna’s conviction and sentence be vacated and ordered a new trial.

Appeals filed

On Aug. 2, 2018, the Missouri Attorney General’s Office appealed Hickle’s ruling to the Southern District, asking the court to reverse Hickle’s judgement granting Hanna’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for its failure to call Black.

“Ms. Black’s testimony would not have provided a viable defense because its impact on the timeline would have only affected the mother’s involvement in (Hanna’s) escape and would not have exonerated (Hanna) of the murder itself … ,” according to the brief filed at the AG’s Office.

The AG’s Office also asked the appellate court to affirm Hanna’s remaining five claims.

Attorneys representing Hanna also filed an appeal on Aug. 10, 2018, asking the Southern District to reverse Hickle’s denial of relief on his other claims.

Judgement affirmed

In reviewing the “entire record, we must be left with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made,” Judge Nancy Steffan Rahmeyer wrote in the court’s opinion. Presiding Judge Gary W. Lynch and Judge William W. Francis Jr. concurred with the opinion.

“We are not left with such a definite and firm impression,” Rahmeyer further wrote. “The state does not argue that trial counsel was ineffective, rather, the state argues that the testimony of Ms. Black would not have changed the result of the trial because of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.”

In making the argument, Rahmeyer writes, the state relies upon “‘far more credible testimony of a neighbor,’” who testified the shot was fired at 8 a.m.

“The state’s argument misses the mark,” Rahmeyer further writes. “The point of the motion court’s ruling was that the jury only heard one side as to the time of the shot and that timing was critical.

“It was for the jury to determine who was ‘more critical’ at the trial. … Although the state points to several circumstantial events that could be used to convict (Hanna), the fact remains that the motion court found that a critical and contrary piece of evidence was not given to the jury at the trial.”

In affirming the judgement, Rahmeyer said, the appellate court cannot find Hickle “clearly erred in that finding.”