Lamont Johnson v. State of Tennessee, W2016-00090-CCA-R3-PC

Background

In 2010 Lamont Johnson was convicted by a Gibson County jury of first-degree murder (aggravated child abuse) for the death of his five-month-old daughter and sentenced to life with parole.
Evidence at trial: autopsy showed multiple acute blunt-force injuries (skull fracture, retinal detachment, massive internal bleeding, multiple rib fractures); experts testified injuries inconsistent with a fall or CPR and indicated violent trauma. Only the petitioner and his eight-year-old son were alone with the victim during the relevant period.
Defense theory at trial: suggested the petitioner’s eight-year-old son could have caused the injuries; trial court excluded broad character/propensity evidence about the child and granted the State’s motion limiting evidence of the child’s violent propensities. Defense rested without calling witnesses or putting on rebuttal proof.
Post-conviction petition alleged nine trial deficiencies (chiefly failure to obtain/call an independent medical expert, inadequate cross-examination of State experts Dr. Laboy and Dr. Piercey, failure to correct allegedly misleading investigating-officer testimony, and investigation/witness failures).
At the evidentiary hearing Dr. Laboy (State expert) reiterated the autopsy conclusions; trial counsel testified about strategic choices (investigation, mock voir dire, counseling petitioner about testifying); petitioner failed to present an expert that would contradict State medical testimony.
The post-conviction court denied relief, finding no clear-and-convincing proof of deficient performance or resulting prejudice; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Johnson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Failure to obtain an independent medical expert	Counsel was unreasonable for not retaining a defense medical expert who could show timing discrepancies and support an alternate-perpetrator theory	No evidence an expert exists to contradict State experts; petitioner failed to present such an expert at the hearing	Denied — petitioner failed to prove deficiency or prejudice; no expert produced to rebut State proof
Inadequate cross-examination of State medical experts (Dr. Laboy, Dr. Piercey)	Counsel failed to exploit alleged discrepancies about timing of symptom onset	Trial counsel reasonably limited cross and no contradiction existed in experts’ testimony	Denied — record showed no meaningful conflict; counsel’s cross was within strategy and not ineffective
Failure to correct/ object to allegedly false/misleading investigating-officer testimony	Counsel should have corrected officer’s statement suggesting the forensic interview ‘‘eliminated’’ the child as a suspect	Officer’s testimony was not shown to be false or misleading; no evidence the child was a viable suspect	Denied — petitioner did not show the testimony was false or that counsel’s failure prejudiced the defense
Denial of ability to present a complete defense / alternative-suspect theory	Deficiencies prevented presentation of proof that someone else (the eight-year-old) committed the crime	No admissible or probative evidence supported the alternative-suspect theory; exclusion of speculative character evidence was proper	Denied — court found ‘‘not even a smidgen’’ of evidence implicating the child; no prejudice from counsel’s choices

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999) (procedures for advising defendant of right to testify and waiver)
Pylant v. State, 263 S.W.3d 854 (Tenn. 2008) (post-conviction failure-to-call-witness rule: petitioner should present the witness at the hearing)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (counsel performance review and Strickland application in Tennessee)
Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (establishes objective-reasonableness standard for attorney performance)
Tidwell v. State, 922 S.W.2d 497 (Tenn. 1996) (post-conviction factual findings are conclusive unless evidence preponderates)
Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (appellate limits on reweighing factual findings)