298 P.3d 596
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Petitioner Hale was convicted in 1998 of 13 counts of aggravated murder and other crimes; seven convictions and death sentences were affirmed on direct review and remanded for corrected judgments, while six were reversed.
- On post-conviction review, Hale challenged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and asserted standalone Eighth/constitutional challenges to the death sentences.
- Evidence at trial tied the murders to Hale and his codefendant Susbauer, including DNA and semen findings linking Hale to some victims and Susbauer to others.
- Susbauer pleaded guilty to three aggravated murders and cooperated; Hale insisted Susbauer was the primary actor, while Hale claimed he was present but not the principal killer.
- The post-conviction court denied relief; the Oregon Supreme Court reversed in part, granting relief on burglary convictions and sustaining other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mental illness and Atkins/DT claims | Hale asserts ineffective trial counsel for not diagnosing schizophrenia and for withholding juvenile records. | State contends counsel acted reasonably; Hale failed to prove prejudice and lacked mental illness evidence. | Trial counsel not ineffective; no prejudice shown; Atkins/mental-illness claim rejected. |
| Physical restraints during trial | Restraints without explicit risk findings violated rights and unconstitutionally affected trial. | Record showed security interests; restraints did not prejudice or reach jurors. | Stand-alone restraint claims barred; no prejudice found; convictions unaffected. |
| Advice not to testify | Counsel pressured Hale not to testify, violating right to testify. | Counsel reasonably advised based on Hale's demeanor and risk of invoking harsher penalties. | No improper deprivation of right to testify; counsel's advice reasonable. |
| Indictment due process (grand-jury/perjury concerns) | Trial counsel failed to challenge indictment due to purported perjured grand-jury testimony by co-defendant Susbauer. | Record showed no perjury; challenges were properly denied as unsupported. | No error; indictment challenges rejected. |
| Burglary concurrence instruction | Dual/contradictory specific-intent instructions violated Boots and required a concurrence instruction. | No prejudice given overwhelming evidence; lacking concurrence instruction, but convictions still valid. | Prejudice shown; burglary convictions reversed and remanded for proper concurrence instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hale, 335 Or 612 (Oregon 2003) (remand for resentencing; death sentences reviewed)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1986) (reasonableness of trial strategy under Strickland)
- Palmer v. State of Oregon, 318 Or 352 (Or. 1994) (post-conviction preservation and relief standards)
- State v. Boots, 308 Or 371 (Or. 1989) (concurrence in burglary elements; specificity of intent)
- Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or 134 (Or. 1990) (collateral estoppel/issue preclusion doctrine)