Crain v. State
78 So. 3d 1025
| Fla. | 2011Background
- Crain, a death-sentenced inmate, challenges postconviction relief denying his capital murder conviction and death sentence.
- Direct appeal affirmed Crain’s first-degree felony murder conviction; kidnapping with intent to inflict bodily harm was not supported on count II and was remanded for false imprisonment and resentencing.
- A postconviction evidentiary hearing addressed ineffective assistance claims: DNA evidence stipulation as blood source, failure to retain a rebuttal expert on scratch-marks, and mitigation and mental-health evaluation.
- DNA evidence: stipulation that Amanda Brown’s DNA matched stains on Crain’s shorts and bathroom was challenged as potentially improperly labeled as blood and not independently tested.
- Scratch-marks: State’s pathologist Dr. Vega testified marks were consistent with a child’s nails; Crain defense sought an expert but trial-cross examination was used instead.
- Penalty-phase: defense presented Dr. Berland’s evaluations suggesting brain injury and mental impairment; postconviction court found counsel’s strategy reasonable and not deficient; juror-interview rules were upheld as constitutional.
- Court affirmed denial of postconviction relief on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DNA stipulation effectiveness | Crain asserts DNA stipulation was deficient and not independently tested. | Crain’s counsel reasonably chose stipulation after consulting a DNA expert; independent testing not pursued as strategic. | No prejudice; strategic decision supported; relief denied. |
| Failure to retain rebuttal expert | Crain claims counsel should have hired a rebuttal expert to Dr. Vega. | Cross-examination and deposition of Vega provided effective challenge; no deficiency. | Not ineffective; prejudice not shown. |
| Penalty-phase mitigation investigation | Counsel failed to adequately investigate/present mitigation and to secure competent psychological evaluation. | Counsel relied on Dr. Berland and other witnesses; investigations deemed reasonable. | Not ineffective; no prejudice. |
| Juror interview rules constitutional challenge | Rules restricting posttrial juror interviews violate Crain’s rights. | Rules upheld; no vitiation of proceedings; requests not shown to require new trial. | Rules constitutional; no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel; deficiency and prejudice tests)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (affirms strategic choices and cross-examination sufficiency in habeas contexts)
- Darling v. State, 966 So.2d 366 (Fla. 2007) (defense reliance on expert evaluations; admissibility of mitigation testimony)
- Wade v. State, 41 So.3d 857 (Fla. 2010) (clarifies preservation and scope of closing argument issues; standard of review for prejudice)
- Darling v. State, 966 So.2d 366 (Fla. 2007) (discipline on trial counsel reliance on expert evaluations)