Brian J. Dorsey v. State of Missouri, 448 S.W.3d 276

Background

Dorsey was convicted by a Boone County jury of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death on each count.
Post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035 and 29.15 was denied after a three-day evidentiary hearing; jurisdiction lies here on death sentences.
Facts include the December 23–26, 2006 timeline: Dorsey killed the Bonnies with a 20-gauge shotgun, engaged in sex with Sarah’s body, poured bleach on her, stole items, and used stolen property to pay drug debts.
DNA testing showed Sarah’s autosomal DNA matching Sarah and Dorsey, with Y-chromosome DNA not excluding Dorsey; CODIS hits later identified additional matches.
Dorsey pleaded guilty in March 2008 to both counts; a penalty-phase jury returned death sentences based on aggravating factors.
On appeal, Dorsey asserts ineffective assistance of trial counsel and Brady violations; the motion court’s findings are reviewed for clear error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady nondisclosure of exculpatory DNA peak	Dorsey claims peak deletion in autosomal DNA was exculpatory and undisclosed.	State contends peak was an artifact and evidence was disclosed; no Brady prejudice shown.	Not preserved; no reversible Brady error found.
Failure to challenge Y-chromosome profile	Counsel failed to investigate/dicuss differential extraction to obtain a more discriminating autosomal profile.	Trial strategy supported pleading guilty; differential extraction would not have altered outcome.	No prejudice; decision not to pursue was reasonable.
Implied consent/Sim incarceration implication	Counsel failed to object to prosecutor’s implication that Sim was incarcerated, prejudicing punishment phase.	Questions did not mislead jury; Sim’s whereabouts were irrelevant.	Not prejudicial; no ineffective assistance.
Diminished capacity defense	Counsel failed to pursue diminished capacity; would have reduced culpability.	Evidence did not show a reasonable prospect of success; plea strategy favored mercy.	Not reasonably likely to change outcome; strategy reasonable.
Mitigating evidence and treating physicians	Counsel should have presented more mitigating testimony from Dr. Smith and treating physicians.	Testimony offered was largely cumulative; additional experts would not alter result.	No ineffective assistance; strategy reasonable; cumulative proof favored.
Alternative light source testimony / Frye	Counsel should have objected to alternative-light-source evidence and sought Frye hearing.	Evidence not shown to be unreliable; testimony and foundation were adequate.	No error; Frye hearing not required.
Juror Reddick strike	Counsel should have moved to strike or reexamine due to prior acquaintance with Ben.	Answers during voir dire favorable; no clear bias shown.	Not ineffective; trial strategy reasonable.
Conflict of interest from flat-fee arrangement	Flat-fee arrangement created incentive to rush; affected performance.	No actual conflict shown; funds available for experts; testimony credible.	No actual conflict that adversely affected performance.

Key Cases Cited

State v. McLaughlin, 378 S.W.3d 328 (Mo. banc 2012) (preserves claims; standard for post-conviction review)
State v. Schneider, 736 S.W.2d 392 (Mo. banc 1987) (state not required to gather all conceivable evidence)
State v. Shafer, 969 S.W.2d 719 (Mo. banc 1998) (pleading and preservation limits; no plain error review in post-conviction)
State v. Perry, 820 S.W.2d 570 (Mo. App. 1991) (implied consent; Rule 55 pleading scope)
State v. Vinson, 800 S.W.2d 444 (Mo. banc 1990) (pleadings and waiver in post-conviction motions)
State v. Butler, 951 S.W.2d 600 (Mo. banc 1997) (admissibility of alternative evidence; Y-chromosome context)
State v. Roll, 942 S.W.2d 370 (Mo. banc 1997) (actual conflict required to overturn counsel effectiveness)
Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28 (Mo. banc 2006) (juror impartiality; structural error standards)
Krupp v. State, 356 S.W.3d 142 (Mo. banc 2011) (actual conflict; Strickland prejudice framework)
State v. Davis, 814 S.W.2d 593 (Mo. banc 1991) (Frye standard in admitted scientific evidence)