Johnson v. State
2013 Mo. LEXIS 37
| Mo. | 2013Background
- Movant Kevin Johnson was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, a result affirmed on direct appeal.
- Movant filed a Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion; the motion court held an evidentiary hearing on five of fourteen allegations and denied relief.
- The homicide occurred in Meachem Park when Movant shot Sgt. William McEntee multiple times after pursuing a grievance over his brother’s death.
- Movant’s brother died earlier the same day due to a preexisting heart condition; Movant claimed ASD impaired his ability to deliberate.
- The motion court conducted extensive analysis on ineffective assistance claims, including diminished capacity, evidentiary issues, and mitigation strategy.
- The Missouri Supreme Court affirms the denial of post-conviction relief; the concurrence debates the impact of uniformed officers in the courtroom.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diminished capacity defense ineffective assistance | Johnson argues trial counsel should have presented ASD testimony. | Kraft and Steele reasonably decided not to pursue ASD to avoid strategic risk. | Not ineffective; strategic choice reasonable; no prejudice shown |
| Brady violation | State suppressed favorable probation-status information for witness | Record shows no undisclosed deal or prejudice; testimony corroborated | No Brady violation; no prejudice established |
| Failure to object to video Exhibit 88 | Video was inaccurate demonstrative evidence and prejudicial | Video fair representation; objections would be nonmeritorious | Not ineffective; no merit to objection |
| Presence of uniformed police officers in courtroom | Officers’ presence conveyed message to convict and influenced the jury | Jury sequestered; no demonstrated prejudice; no structural error | Not prejudicial; no evidentiary hearing required (majority); concurrence would remand for hearing |
| Mitigation evidence (Bailey) not called | Bailey would testify to Movant’s good fathering and relationship with daughter | Testimony would be cumulative and not viable defense; strategic decision not to call | Not ineffective; cumulative testimony; no viable defense shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice required)
- Deck v. State, 544 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2005) (death-penalty context; prejudice from counsel's performance)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1976) (trial conducted in identifiable attire; due process concerns)
- McLaughlin v. State, 378 S.W.3d 328 (Mo. banc 2012) (post-conviction standards and standard of review)
- State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. banc 1996) (ineffective assistance presumptions)
- Baumruk v. State, 364 S.W.3d 518 (Mo. banc 2012) (counsel not ineffective for failing to call cumulative witness)
- Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2009) (appearance of restraints; necessity of prejudicial showing)
- Bucklew v. State, 38 S.W.3d 395 (Mo. banc 2001) (mitigation and argument impact on death verdict)
- State v. Kenley, 952 S.W.2d 250 (Mo. banc 1997) (prejudice standard for post-conviction relief)
- State v. Clemons, 946 S.W.2d 206 (Mo. banc 1997) (closing argument and evidentiary standards)