543 S.W.3d 1
Mo.2018Background
- Christopher Collings confessed to sexually assaulting and strangling nine-year-old Rowan Ford; her body was found in a cave. Collings was convicted of first-degree murder, sentenced to death, and the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Collings filed a timely Rule 29.15 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel (multiple points), and constitutional challenges to the voluntary-intoxication statute and timing rules; an evidentiary hearing was held and the motion court denied relief.
- Key factual points at trial: Collings gave recorded statements admitting sexual assault and strangulation; some evidence implicated co-defendant David Spears (confessions, cadaver-dog alerts on Spears’s vehicle, internet/computer activity, eyewitnesses), and the jury found two aggravators including torture and that Ford was a potential witness.
- Defense presented mitigation evidence (family witnesses, Dr. Wanda Draper on emotional development and abuse). Postconviction experts (Dr. Melissa Piasecki) testified about addiction neurobiology and intoxication’s effects, which defense counsel had not emphasized at trial.
- The motion court found defense counsel conducted an extensive investigation (eight experts retained), made reasonable strategic choices (e.g., avoid emphasizing voluntary intoxication or calling certain witnesses), and appellate counsel’s choices were strategic; this court affirmed the denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntary-intoxication statute & jury instruction | Collings: §562.076 and MAI-CR 310.50 barred presentation of addiction/neurobiology evidence and hindered showing lack of deliberation | State: statute and instruction are constitutional; precedent permits states to limit voluntary intoxication evidence | Held: Counsel not ineffective for failing to litigate constitutionality; statute/instruction upheld by U.S. and Missouri precedent (no Strickland violation) |
| Failure to call addiction/trauma expert at penalty | Collings: expert neuropsychiatric mitigation would likely have reduced death recommendation | State: counsel investigated thoroughly and made strategic choices; multiple experts were retained and mitigation presented via Dr. Draper and family witnesses | Held: No ineffective assistance—investigation adequate and choice of experts was reasonable strategic decision |
| Exclusion of mitigation records relied on by Dr. Draper | Collings: appellate counsel ineffective for not appealing trial court’s exclusion of records Dr. Draper used | State: records would be cumulative; issue on appeal was not preserved and, at most, cumulative evidence was excluded properly | Held: No plain error; exclusion of cumulative records not manifest injustice; appellate counsel’s omission not ineffective |
| Failure to present third-party evidence (Spears statements, witnesses, DNA, cadaver-dog, internet history) | Collings: Various uncalled witnesses and unchallenged evidence (Spears’s recorded confession, DNA raw data, neighbors, cadaver-dog handler) would have created reasonable doubt or mitigated penalty | State: Counsel attempted or made reasoned strategic choices (avoid highlighting Spears’ confession, tried to obtain DNA raw data, presented cadaver-dog testimony at penalty, some proposed testimony inconsistent or nonprobative) | Held: Motion court did not clearly err—decisions were strategic or proposed evidence would not have produced viable defense or was cumulative |
| Vagueness of "torture" aggravator | Collings: appellate counsel ineffective for not separately arguing "torture" aggravator is unconstitutionally vague | State: "torture" has established meaning and appellate counsel reasonably prioritized issues; no controlling precedent making the claim obvious | Held: No ineffective assistance—issue not so obvious a competent counsel would have raised it separately |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (failure-to-assist standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (upholding state statutes limiting consideration of voluntary intoxication)
- State v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577 (Mo. banc 1997) (Missouri upheld MAI-CR 3d 310.50 instruction)
- Johnson v. State, 406 S.W.3d 892 (Mo. banc 2013) (prejudice standard in death-penalty Strickland analysis)
- Davis v. State, 486 S.W.3d 898 (Mo. banc 2016) (duty to investigate mitigating evidence in capital cases)
- McLaughlin v. State, 378 S.W.3d 328 (Mo. banc 2012) (strategic decisions and cumulative evidence principles)