Hardy v. State, 387 S.W.3d 394

Hardy was convicted in Missouri of first-degree murder and armed criminal action and sentenced to life without parole and life for the other count, respectively, with sentences to run concurrently.
Direct appeals were unsuccessful; the conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal before post-conviction relief proceedings.
Hardy filed a Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to Detective Hope’s testimony and to the State’s closing argument.
At trial, Detective Hope testified about Watkins’s statements and investigative steps; a hearsay objection to the transcript of Watkins’s interview was sustained and the transcript was not admitted.
Medlock’s identification of Hardy was developed through cross-examination and redirect; defense attempted to rehabilitate Medlock’s prior inability to identify Hardy.
The motion court denied relief; the appellate court reviews the denial for clear error and applies Strickland standards for ineffective assistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to Hope’s testimony	Hardy argues Picker should have objected to Hope’s testimony as hearsay.	Picker testified his strategy did not require such objection and Hope’s testimony explained conduct, not the truth of a statement.	No ineffective assistance; no prejudicial error; testimony was admissible to explain conduct.
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to closing argument	Hardy contends closing argument improperly referred to Medlock’s out-of-court identification and biased the jury.	State’s remarks were within closing arguments and did not mislead or deprive Hardy of a fair trial; retaliation allowed.	No ineffective assistance; closing remarks within proper bounds and not prejudicial.

State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2006) (hearsay and admissibility standard; explanation of conduct not hearsay)
State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886 (Mo. banc 1995) (ineffective assistance framework)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (defining prejudice and reasonable probability in ineffective assistance)
State v. Shurn, 866 S.W.2d 447 (Mo. banc 1993) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905 (Mo. banc 1992) (prejudice and effectiveness standards in counsel performance)
Jackson v. State, 205 S.W.3d 282 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (closing argument admissibility and prejudice standards)
Aaron v. State, 81 S.W.3d 682 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (retaliatory closing argument and limits of prosecutorial comment)
Davidson v. State, 308 S.W.3d 311 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (objections to improper questions and strategy considerations)
State v. Clay, 975 S.W.2d 121 (Mo. banc 1998) (presumption of effectiveness and burden on movant)
Helmig v. State, 42 S.W.3d 658 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) (trial strategy and objections in context of strategy)
State v. Allison, 326 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (hearsay and admissibility considerations in testimony)
State v. Winegarner, 87 S.W.3d 923 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002) (cumulative error and harmless error review)