Moffett v. State
156 So. 3d 835
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Moffett was convicted of capital murder in a 1994 sexual-abuse-and-murder of a five-year-old, with the death penalty imposed by a jury under HAC and felonious abuse/battery aggravators.
- Direct appeal affirmed; post-conviction relief motions followed; US Supreme Court certiorari denied.
- The post-conviction petitions centered on ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and cumulative error.
- Extensive trial evidence included eyewitness testimony, a confession, and DNA analysis linking Moffett to the crime.
- Moffett presented affidavits from psychologists and defense counsel alleging failure to pursue mental-health mitigation, along with other mitigation investigations.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court declines relief, finding no Strickland prejudice or procedural error warranted by the asserted claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failure to pursue mental-health mitigation | Moffett claims de Gruy and Duggan failed to obtain a proper mental-health evaluation and to present mitigation. | Defense decision not to pursue mitigation evidence was reasonable and strategic. | Denied; no Strickland prejudice shown. |
| Ineffective assistance for inadequate pretrial investigation | No adequate mitigation investigation was conducted. | Investigation conducted; interns used; strategic decisions shown. | Denied; not prejudicial under Strickland. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during guilt/sentencing closing; failure to object | Counsel failed to object to prosecutorial comments prejudicial to defense. | Context shows comments were permissible or harmless given overwhelming evidence. | Denied; no prejudice established. |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising issues on direct appeal (plain error) | Appellate counsel should have raised issues deemed plain error. | Counsel not ineffective; strategic choices supported; no plain-error showing. | Denied; not merit-worthy under direct-appeal review. |
| Cumulative error claim | Cumulative prosecutorial and counsel errors denied fair trial. | No identifiable errors accumulate to deny a fair trial. | Denied; no aggregate error warranted reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective-assistance of counsel; two-prong test)
- Mohr v. State, 584 So.2d 426 (Miss. 1991) (prejudice required to show ineffective assistance in capital cases)
- Dancer v. State, 721 So.2d 583 (Miss. 1998) (harmless-error principle where guilt is overwhelming)
- Edwards v. State, 737 So.2d 275 (Miss. 1999) (prosecutorial comments and prejudice evaluation in closing)
- Spicer v. State, 973 So.2d 184 (Miss. 2007) (prejudice inquiry for closing arguments; standard for ineffective-assistance)