Nichols v. State, 517 S.W.3d 404

Background

Matthew Wayne Nichols was convicted by a jury of capital murder for setting his girlfriend, Jessica McFadden, on fire; he was sentenced to life without parole after the State waived death; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
Nichols filed a timely Rule 37.1 petition alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and prosecutorial misconduct; the trial court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
Trial evidence included three eyewitnesses who saw Nichols douse and ignite McFadden and Nichols’ own testimony admitting he poured gasoline and lit a flame, then poured more gasoline.
Nichols claimed trial counsel failed to investigate/introduce UAMS medical records and doctors’ testimony (alleging withdrawal of care, potential causation issues), failed to investigate witness statements and obtain phone records or a handwriting expert, and failed to object to prosecutor’s closing remarks.
The trial court found counsel’s choices were strategic and reasonable; prosecutorial-misconduct claims were not cognizable on Rule 37.1 because they could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal. The supreme court dismissed the appeal as Nichols could not prevail.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
I. Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate/offer UAMS medical records/doctors	Nichols: records/doctors would show withdrawal of care caused death and possibly exonerate him	State: wrongdoer whose act is a proximate cause remains criminally liable; medical withdrawal irrelevant and would underscore injury severity	Court: Counsel’s decision not to present records/medical testimony was reasonable; claim fails under Strickland
II. Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate witness statements and cross-examine	Nichols: counsel failed to uncover inconsistencies in eyewitnesses’ prior statements that would undermine their testimony	State: Nichols gave no factual specifics; his own testimony corroborated key eyewitness facts	Court: Conclusory allegations unsupported by facts insufficient; no prejudice shown
III. Prosecutorial misconduct / counsel’s failure to object to closing argument	Nichols: prosecutor inflamed jury and counsel should have objected or sought mistrial	State: prosecutor’s remarks were drawn from testimony and reasonable inferences; objections might be strategic; misconduct claim was available earlier and not cognizable on Rule 37.1	Court: Remarks were based on trial evidence; failure to object was within reasonable strategy; misconduct claim not cognizable in Rule 37.1
IV. Ineffective assistance — failure to obtain phone records or handwriting expert; failure to suppress evidence	Nichols: phone records would discredit witness about threats; handwriting expert would show consent form forged and taint physical evidence	State: Nichols offered no factual support tying records/handwriting to a change in outcome; circumstantial evidence of premeditation and admissions strong	Court: Bare assertions insufficient; even if records/expert procured, no reasonable probability of a different result

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Cashion, 361 S.W.3d 268 (Ark. 2010) (appeal from denial of Rule 37 relief barred where appellant cannot prevail)
Nichols v. State, 465 S.W.3d 846 (Ark. 2015) (summary of trial evidence affirmed conviction)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Walden v. State, 498 S.W.3d 725 (Ark. 2016) (standard of review for Rule 37 ineffective-assistance claims)
Rea v. State, 501 S.W.3d 357 (Ark. 2016) (conclusory allegations insufficient for Rule 37 relief)
Polivka v. State, 362 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. 2010) (strategic choices about objections during closing)
Jefferson v. State, 276 S.W.3d 214 (Ark. 2008) (concurrent proximate cause and criminal liability)
Pearcy v. State, 375 S.W.3d 622 (Ark. 2010) (premeditation may be formed in an instant and inferred from circumstantial evidence)
Wyles v. State, 249 S.W.3d 782 (Ark. 2007) (presumption that actor intends natural and probable consequences of actions)
Airsman v. State, 473 S.W.3d 549 (Ark. 2015) (prosecutorial-misconduct claims not cognizable in Rule 37 if could have been raised earlier)