Byrd v. State
329 S.W.3d 718
Mo. Ct. App.2010Background
- Movant Byrd was convicted by a Pemiscot County jury of four counts of first-degree statutory sodomy involving his step-daughter, conduct spanning 2002–2005.
- Appellate counsel filed a post-conviction relief motion under Rule 29.15 alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel on three points.
- The motion court conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied relief, attaching findings of fact and conclusions of law as the final judgment.
- Movant appealed the denial in three points relying on counsel's alleged failures: challenge to Juror Hall, failure to obtain a pretrial reliability hearing for jailhouse informants, and failure to impeach Victim’s mother with a prior inconsistent statement.
- The Missouri Court of Appeals reviews for whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous and applies Strickland prejudice standard.
- Court affirms the motion court, denying post-conviction relief on all three ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did trial counsel err by not striking or challenging Juror Hall? | Byrd contends Hall was biased; counsel should have struck him or sought a mistrial. | State argues no actual bias shown; Hall indicated willingness to be fair and knew Movant only as a former neighbor. | Denied; no actual bias established; juror sat impartially. |
| Was counsel ineffective for not seeking a pretrial reliability hearing for jailhouse informants? | Byrd asserts jailhouse informants were inherently unreliable; a reliability hearing was required to exclude them. | State rejects need for such hearings in Missouri; failure to seek hearing not ineffective without prejudice. | Denied; no reasonable probability the outcome would differ; Missouri law does not require such a hearing. |
| Was counsel ineffective for not impeaching Victim's mother with a prior inconsistent statement? | Byrd claims impeaching the mother would have credibility impact and prejudice the State's case. | State contends trial strategy allowed not impeaching to avoid alienating jurors; strategy need not be overturned. | Denied; strategic choice reasonable; no showing of prejudice to outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 963 S.W.2d 317 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) (requires actual bias for juror challenge; not mere possibility)
- Worthington v. State, 166 S.W.3d 566 (Mo. banc 2005) (strong presumption of effective performance; narrow standard)
- Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418 (Mo. banc 2002) (prejudice prong requires probability outcome would differ)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (establishes two-pronged standard for ineffective assistance)
- Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28 (Mo. banc 2006) (trial strategy and reasonable choices are generally non-reviewable)
- Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2009) (presumes correct findings; reversal only for clear error)
- Reynolds v. State, 87 S.W.3d 381 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002) (impeachment decisions largely trial-strategy decisions)
- Fry v. State, 244 S.W.3d 284 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (mere failure to impeach is not per se ineffective assistance)
- Harp v. State, 209 S.W.3d 560 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (no ineffective assistance for failing to pursue unavailable procedures)