Johnson v. State
2011 Mo. LEXIS 52
| Mo. | 2011Background
- Ernest Johnson was convicted in 1995 of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death; direct appeals had previously remanded for new penalty-phase proceedings.
- Johnson's third penalty-phase proceeding (May 2006) focused on mental retardation and fetal alcohol syndrome as mitigating factors.
- The jury found Johnson not mentally retarded in the third penalty phase and, like prior phases, recommended death; circuit court imposed three death sentences.
- Post-conviction motion under Rule 29.15 was denied after an evidentiary hearing with testimony from mental-health professionals and witnesses relating to guilt-phase and penalty-phase evidence.
- Johnson challenged trial counsel's effectiveness on multiple grounds, including the use of Dr. Keyes, the handling of evidence about Rod Grant, deposition testimony, a videotaped interview, and the handling of Dr. Kline's report under § 552.020.14.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel ineffective for calling Dr. Keyes? | Johnson asserts Keyes was unqualified and biased toward retardation testimony. | Counsel acted strategically; Keyes's testimony had objective support and aligned with Atkins guidance. | No clear error; trial strategy supported by record. |
| Should evidence that Rod Grant orchestrated the offense have been presented at penalty phase? | Evidence of Grant's dominance would mitigate by showing Johnson acted under another's control. | Strategic focus on mental retardation; guilt-phase evidence would not alter penalty-phase outcome. | No clear error; strategic choice upheld. |
| Was the deposition of Dr. Bernard or Johnson's mother's mental health records improperly admitted or crucial to mitigation? | Deposition and records would provide additional mitigating evidence. | Deposition was cumulative and records were inadmissible hearsay or duplicative. | No error; cumulative and non-prejudicial. |
| Did trial counsel err by not objecting to Dr. Heisler's videotaped evaluation? | Video violated constitutional safeguards or was improperly used. | Strategy supported by defense; defendant placed mental condition in issue; objections would be meritless. | No ineffective assistance; strategy reasonable. |
| Did references to Dr. Kline's competency report violate § 552.020.14 by improperly influencing the penalty-phase? | Prosecutor's use of Kline's findings violated evidence rules restricting statements related to guilt. | Questions about Kline's findings concerned experts' opinions, not guilt; any error would be non-prejudicial. | Not improper under governing doctrine; not prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutchison v. State, 150 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. banc 2004) (risk of ineffective assistance for failing to pursue mitigating history)
- Kenley v. State, 952 S.W.2d 250 (Mo. banc 1997) (trial strategy in witness selection is largely unchallengeable)
- Skaggs v. Parker, 235 F.3d 261 (6th Cir.2000) (witness selection and credibility issues involve strategy, not per se ineffectiveness)
- Stevens v. McBride, 489 F.3d 883 (7th Cir.2007) (unreasonable reliance on a potentially harmful expert testifying for prosecution)
- Copeland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 828 (Mo. banc 1996) (Estelle distinction; questions about evaluation do not implicate guilt if properly limited)
- Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981) (limits on using psychiatric testimony when defendant did not place mental condition in issue)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (cited regarding mental retardation and capital sentencing considerations)
- Goodwin v. State, 191 S.W.3d 20 (Mo. banc 2006) (Keyes testimony; not per se incredible; reliability and evidentiary bases analyzed)
- Heslop v. State, 842 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. banc 1992) (trial strategy; discretionary decisions not easily overturned)