Marcie Lynn Pursell v. State of Tennessee
M2015-01375-CCA-R3-PC
Tenn. Crim. App.Jul 5, 2016Background
- Marcie Lynn Pursell convicted of three counts of aggravated child abuse for multiple fractures to her newborn; received concurrent 15-year sentences; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- Post-conviction petition (filed 2014, amended 2015) alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel on several grounds related to handling of medical expert testimony and counsel experience.
- Defense team consisted of Pursell’s uncle (lead, mainly civil/transactional lawyer with minimal criminal-trial experience) and co-counsel (experienced criminal attorney); they divided roles: uncle led medical proof, co-counsel handled criminal procedure and civilian witnesses.
- State’s medical experts (Drs. Heller, Greeley, McMaster) testified fractures resulted from inflicted trauma; defense theory blamed other caregivers or medical causes and attacked expert bias/credibility.
- At trial, defense sought exclusion of Dr. McMaster as cumulative and attempted impeachment; trial court limited certain McMaster questioning but denied exclusion; post-conviction court found counsel adequately prepared and representation within reasonable professional norms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not seeking exclusion of State medical experts based on alleged bias | Pursell: experts biased to protect employer; bias rendered their testimony inadmissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 702/402/403 | State: bias affects credibility and is for cross-examination, not wholesale exclusion | Court: No — bias is credibility issue; exclusion not warranted; counsel not deficient |
| Whether counsel failed to impeach Dr. McMaster with prior inconsistent sworn statements | Pursell: McMaster testified at trial about an additional fracture inconsistent with prior McDaniel hearing testimony; counsel should have used prior testimony to impeach | State: trial counsel cross-examined McMaster; no specific prior sworn statement identified or shown to be available for impeachment | Court: No — Pursell did not identify the specific prior inconsistent sworn statement; counsel’s cross-examination was adequate |
| Whether counsel failed to introduce prior juvenile-court testimony to impeach experts | Pursell: prior juvenile-court testimony could have impeached State experts | State: trial court limited references to juvenile-court outcome; counsel said no useful inconsistent prior statements available | Court: No — Pursell failed to show any favorable prior inconsistent juvenile testimony was available |
| Whether lead counsel’s inexperience rendered representation ineffective | Pursell: uncle’s limited criminal experience prejudiced defense | State: uncle associated experienced criminal co-counsel; team division addressed experience gap | Court: No — inexperience alone insufficient; association with experienced co-counsel and court’s finding of adequate representation defeated claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
- McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997) (factors for evaluating reliability/admissibility of expert testimony)
- Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (reasonable probability standard for prejudice; deference to trial strategy)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (standards for post-conviction review; burden and deference to trial court findings)
- Carpenter v. State, 126 S.W.3d 879 (Tenn. 2004) (counsel not deficient for failing to pursue nonviable evidentiary argument)