Lance C. Shockley v. State of Missouri
579 S.W.3d 881
| Mo. | 2019Background
- Lance C. Shockley was convicted of first-degree murder of a highway patrol sergeant; jury found statutory aggravators but deadlocked on penalty, so court imposed death sentence; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- Shockley filed a Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion alleging numerous instances of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and Brady violations; the motion court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief.
- Central contested facts include: (1) a juror (Juror 58) who had self-published a violent novel and distributed copies to some sequestered jurors; (2) disputed ballistics and ownership of a .243 rifle; (3) alleged failures to investigate, call or impeach various witnesses and experts; (4) alleged improper prosecutorial and courtroom conduct during guilt and penalty phases.
- Trial counsel explained multiple strategic choices: focusing voir dire on pro-law-enforcement bias, exploiting contradictions between state ballistics experts rather than calling a defense expert, avoiding potentially harmful witnesses, and not objecting to certain victim-impact exhibits to avoid appearing insensitive.
- The motion court credited trial counsel’s strategic explanations, found Juror 58’s conduct amounted at most to a miscommunication (not intentional misconduct), found no prejudice from alleged omissions, and rejected Brady claims as speculative; the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror 58 — failure to question during voir dire | Counsel should have probed Juror 58’s authorship to reveal bias and strike for cause | Counsel reasonably prioritized questioning about juror’s son (law enforcement) and gun knowledge as trial strategy | No ineffective assistance; strategic choice reasonable and no prejudice shown |
| Juror 58 — failure to call jurors at new-trial hearing | Counsel should have called jurors to prove dissemination and prejudice | Counsel reasonably waived further inquiry to avoid "opening a can of worms" and to preserve argument for life sentence | No ineffective assistance; decision was reasonable strategy |
| Juror misconduct — book given to sequestered jurors | Book’s violent anti-system themes prejudiced trial and warranted new trial | Exposure was limited; jurors and court staff testified minimal reading and no influence; evidence did not show intentional nondisclosure | No juror misconduct requiring new trial; at most miscommunication; no prejudice |
| Failure to call defense ballistics expert | Howard would have excluded the Browning .243 and contradicted state experts, creating reasonable doubt | Trial counsel reviewed prior expert work, relied on contradictions between state experts, and distrusted Howard’s qualifications; calling an expert was strategic choice | No ineffective assistance; strategic to exploit state experts’ inconsistencies |
| Failure to call/witness selection (alibi and mitigation witnesses) | Counsel omitted witnesses who would corroborate alibi and mitigation, prejudicing guilt/penalty | Counsel investigated witnesses, found many provided imperfect or cumulative testimony or risked impeachment; strategic to omit | No ineffective assistance; omissions were strategic or witnesses unavailable/unhelpful |
| Failure to object to demonstrative exhibit (.243 rifle) | Prosecutor’s use of a Browning .243 (not recovered) was inflammatory and should have been excluded | Rifle was logically relevant as demonstrative because evidence showed Shockley once owned such a rifle and ballistics were class-caliber consistent | No ineffective assistance; objection would likely fail; admission not prejudicial |
| Failure to object to prosecutorial comment and victim-impact exhibits | Counsel should have objected to comment implying defendant’s silence and to inflammatory victim-impact materials | Comment was not a direct reference to defendant’s silence and curative instruction was given; exhibits were within discretion and objections could be counterproductive | No ineffective assistance; no decisive effect on jury and exhibits not overboard |
| Brady claim — alleged undisclosed files on victim’s computer | Undisclosed investigative files on the victim's computer would have shown alternate suspects or corruption | Hard drives were stipulated inaccessible; declarations about files were speculative and unsupported; no material, suppressed evidence shown | No Brady violation; no prejudice proved; claim speculative |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Shockley, 410 S.W.3d 179 (Mo. banc 2013) (direct-appeal decision affirming conviction and addressing juror-book issue)
- Knese v. State, 85 S.W.3d 628 (Mo. banc 2002) (adequate voir dire required to uncover juror biases)
- Dorsey v. State, 448 S.W.3d 276 (Mo. banc 2014) (strategic choices after reasonable investigation are virtually unchallengeable)
- Glass v. State, 227 S.W.3d 463 (Mo. banc 2007) (prejudice must be shown for failure-to-question/impeach claims)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (duty to investigate and present mitigating evidence in capital cases)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutor’s suppression of favorable material evidence violates due process)