Nichols v. State
2017 Ark. 129
| Ark. | 2017Background
- 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 the death penalty and this court affirmed his conviction 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.
- Nichols’s petition claimed failures including inadequate investigation (medical records, witness statements, phone records), failure to call/examine experts (treating physicians, handwriting expert), and failure to object to alleged inflammatory prosecutorial remarks.
- Trial evidence included three eyewitnesses who saw Nichols pour gasoline on McFadden and ignite her; Nichols testified he doused and lit her and later added more gasoline, admitting intent to harm.
- The trial court found counsel’s challenged acts were strategic decisions and not deficient; it also held the prosecutorial-misconduct claim was not cognizable in a Rule 37.1 proceeding because it could have been raised earlier.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court concluded Nichols could not prevail on appeal, dismissed the appeal, and denied his motions for extension and for duplication at public expense as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to obtain/tender victim medical records and call UAMS physicians | Nichols: medical-records and doctor testimony would show withdrawal of care caused death and possibly exonerate him | State: Nichols’s conduct was a concurrent proximate cause; records irrelevant to guilt and doctors likely would confirm severity of injuries | Court: Counsel’s decision not to present such evidence was reasonable; claim fails |
| Failure to investigate/witness inconsistencies and cross-examine effectively | Nichols: counsel failed to uncover contradictions in eyewitness/officer statements that would undermine prosecution | State: Nichols gave no factual specifics; his own admissions corroborate eyewitnesses | Court: Conclusory allegations lack factual support; no prejudice shown |
| Failure to object to prosecutor’s closing argument / prosecutorial misconduct | Nichols: prosecutor inflamed jury and mischaracterized Nichols’s testimony, affecting verdict on premeditation | State: Closing remarks were based on trial evidence and reasonable inferences; misconduct claim was available earlier | Court: Remarks were supportable by evidence; failure to object was strategic; misconduct claim not cognizable in Rule 37.1 |
| Failure to employ handwriting expert / suppress evidence | Nichols: an expert would show consent form forged and suppress evidence | State: Nichols did not identify the evidence or show connection to search consent | Court: Unsupported allegation; no showing of deficient performance or prejudice |
| Failure to obtain Yancey phone records and challenge premeditation sufficiency on appeal | Nichols: phone records would disprove a threat that supported premeditation; appellate counsel should have challenged sufficiency | State: Phone records were speculative; premeditation could be inferred from conduct and admissions | Court: Premeditation supported by circumstantial evidence; both trial and appellate claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Cashion, 361 S.W.3d 268 (Ark. 2010) (appeal from denial of postconviction relief will not proceed if appellant cannot prevail)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Nichols v. State, 465 S.W.3d 846 (Ark. 2015) (direct‑appeal opinion summarizing trial evidence)
- Walden v. State, 498 S.W.3d 725 (Ark. 2016) (standard of review for Rule 37.1 ineffective‑assistance claims)
- Jefferson v. State, 276 S.W.3d 214 (Ark. 2008) (actor whose wrongdoing is a concurrent proximate cause remains criminally liable)
- Rea v. State, 501 S.W.3d 357 (Ark. 2016) (conclusory allegations without factual substantiation insufficient for Rule 37.1 relief)
- Polivka v. State, 362 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. 2010) (strategic choices about objections during closing are within counsel’s discretion)
- Wooten v. State, 502 S.W.3d 503 (Ark. 2016) (failure to press a meritless appellate argument is not ineffective assistance)