Jeffrey A. Chandler v. State of Missouri
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1031
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jeffrey A. Chandler was convicted after a bench trial of two counts of second-degree statutory sodomy, one count of second-degree statutory rape, and one count of incest; sentences included three consecutive seven-year terms and a concurrent four-year term.
- This court previously affirmed Chandler’s convictions in State v. Chandler, 429 S.W.3d 503 (Mo.App.E.D. 2014).
- Chandler filed a Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to a detective’s testimony about Chandler’s “micro-gestures” indicating deception.
- The detective interviewed Chandler both before and after giving Miranda warnings; pre-warning questioning was limited to background topics (about 20 minutes), and substantive questioning began only after Chandler signed a Miranda waiver.
- At trial the detective testified he observed verbal and nonverbal cues and that Chandler would verbally deny allegations while nodding (a “micro-gesture”), suggesting deception; defense counsel objected only on foundation/expert grounds.
- The motion court denied relief; Chandler appealed arguing counsel should have objected under Missouri v. Seibert, contending the pre-warning questioning undermined the effectiveness of the Miranda warnings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting under Seibert to detective testimony about micro-gestures observed pre- and post-Miranda | Chandler: the detective’s pre-warning questioning produced information used after the warnings to elicit incriminating responses; counsel should have objected under Seibert because the two-step/interrogation tactic rendered the Miranda warnings ineffective. | State: no Seibert issue because the detective did not use a calculated two-step strategy to elicit substantive pre-warning admissions; pre-warning talk was non-substantive background, Miranda was given and a waiver signed, and no coercion occurred. | Court affirmed denial of the Rule 29.15 motion: Seibert does not apply where no pre-warning substantive admissions occurred or where pre-warning questioning was background and did not undermine Miranda; no ineffective assistance shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (plurality holding that a deliberate two-step interrogation that elicits statements pre-warning then repeats them post-warning can render post-warning statements inadmissible absent curative steps)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings about right to remain silent and counsel)
- State v. Chandler, 429 S.W.3d 503 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2014) (prior appeal affirming convictions)
- State v. Hughes, 272 S.W.3d 246 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2008) (Seibert inapplicable where no pre-warning incriminating statements were made and pre-waiver questioning did not undermine the post-waiver Miranda warnings)