Hayward v. Belleque
248 Or. App. 141
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- 1994 Dari Mart murders; Hayward participated with three others; death sentence affirmed on direct review in Hayward.
- Post-conviction relief seeks to set aside conviction for constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel during guilt and penalty phases.
- Trial evidence included Satanism and death-metal themes; government theory tied to defendant’s motive to murder.
- Petitioner argued trial counsel failed to file motions in limine and to move for mistrial, and failed to present mitigating and victim-impact evidence effectively.
- Court conducted a de novo review of post-conviction findings, upholding trial counsel’s performance as reasonable and findings of no prejudice.
- Statutory and constitutional questions arise about ex post facto implications of victim-impact evidence and its admissibility in sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to Satanism/death metal evidence? | Hayward | Hayward | No; evidence relevant to motive; no prejudice |
| Was mitigation evidence adequately investigated and presented? | Hayward | Hayward | No; investigation reasonable; no prejudice |
| Was victim-impact evidence admissible after 1995 ORS 163.150(1)? ex post facto concerns | Hayward | Hayward | Ex post facto violation; victim-impact evidence impermissibly retroactive |
| Did counsel’s handling of ex post facto issues with regard to Wall’s testimony prejudice petitioner? | Hayward | Hayward | Not shown; no prejudice established |
| Should the case be remanded given Guzek III retroactivity? | Hayward | Hayward | No remand relief available due to constitutional changes; prejudice not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hayward, 327 Or 397, 963 P.2d 667 (Oregon 1998) (direct review upheld conviction and death sentence; motive evidence)
- State v. Guzek, 336 Or 424, 439-44, 86 P.3d 1106 (Oregon 2004) (ex post facto/victim impact evidence framework)
- State v. Metz, 131 Or App 706, 887 P.2d 795 (Oregon App. 1994) (victim impact evidence not relevant under pre-1995 statute)
- State v. Metz II, 162 Or App 448, 986 P2d 714 (Oregon App. 1999) (post-1995 amendment made victim impact evidence relevant; ex post facto issue)
- State v. Cookman, 324 Or 19, 920 P2d 1086 (Oregon 1996) (test for whether changes retrench the rules of evidence)