Johnson v. State, 2012 Mo. LEXIS 280

Movant Johnny A. Johnson was convicted of murder, kidnapping, attempted forcible rape, and armed criminal action, and sentenced to death plus three consecutive life terms; direct appeal affirmed.
Movant sought post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15; motion court denied after an evidentiary hearing; this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal because a death sentence was imposed.
Criminal facts: on July 26, 2003, victim Casey Williamson was abducted to an abandoned factory, sexually assaulted, and killed after Movant struck her with a brick multiple times and a large boulder; Movant attempted to conceal the scene and washed evidence.
Movant waived Miranda rights; he confessed after police questioning.
Post-conviction claims centered on ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland; movant argued brain damage/neuropsychological impairment and failure to call certain witnesses, among other issues.
The motion court conducted a thorough evidentiary record; the court denied relief, and this Court affirmed, applying Strickland deference and reasonable-investigation standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for brain impairment evidence	Johnson: counsel failed to pursue neuropsych testing showing brain damage.	Johnson: counsel should have obtained neuropsychological testimony to mitigate responsibility.	No error; trial counsel reasonably investigated; Beaver testimony was cumulative and not helpful.
Failure to call a potential witness (Teacher)	Strothkamp would support inability to deliberate and a life sentence.	Investigator knew of the witness but movant directed no contact; testimony would be cumulative.	Not ineffective; no viable defense added by call; testimony cumulative.
Voluntariness of statements to police	Counsel was ineffective at suppression for not challenging voluntariness.	Waiver was voluntary; totality of circumstances supports voluntariness; preserved on direct appeal.	Issue not preserved; even if reviewed, waiver and voluntariness supported by record.
Failure to rebut witness testimony on drug use vs mental illness	Counsel should rebut State’s witness to support lack of deliberation.	Unknown witness could have offered viable defense; additional testimony would be non-productive.	Not ineffective; testimony offered was sufficient and additional rebuttal evidence would be cumulative or non-viable.

Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (duty to uncover mitigating evidence in death penalty cases)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (trial strategy and investigation standard for ineffective assistance)
Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28 (Mo. banc 2006) (strategic decisions are virtually unchallengeable)
Vaca v. State, 314 S.W.3d 331 (Mo. banc 2011) (witness selection; burden to show viable defense for failure to call witnesses)
Bucklew v. State, 38 S.W.3d 395 (Mo. banc 2001) (trial counsel not ineffective for failing to present cumulative or non-viable testimony)
Clayton v. State, 63 S.W.3d 201 (Mo. banc 2001) (testimony may be cumulative; trial strategy respected)