Littleton v. State
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 985
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Littleton appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion after waiving an evidentiary hearing.
- He was convicted after a jury trial on ten counts of first-degree robbery, one count of second-degree robbery, and seven counts of armed criminal action; direct appeal affirmed.
- He claimed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to witness testimony violating Confrontation Clause rights.
- DNA evidence involving cigarette butts from Galbreath's vehicle was not introduced via the laboratory report; Mary Beth Karr testified about her independent conclusions.
- Karr testified that her findings were independent of the technician’s report, and she did not perform the actual DNA testing.
- The motion court held counsel was not ineffective; on appeal, the issue is whether Confrontation Clause rights were violated and whether any error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to Karr's testimony on Confrontation Clause grounds? | Littleton | Littleton | No; no Confrontation Clause violation and no merit to objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial statements)
- State v. March, 216 S.W.3d 663 (Mo. banc 2007) (laboratory reports are testimonial when used to prove an element)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (Confrontation Clause applies to testimonial statements)
- Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. banc 1989) (standard of review for Rule 29.15 findings)
- State v. Clark, 364 S.W.3d 540 (Mo. banc 2012) (confrontation and harmless-error framework)
- Barnes v. State, 334 S.W.3d 717 (Mo. App. E.D.2011) (failure to raise non-meritorious objection not ineffective assistance)