Paulson v. State
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 844
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Paulson was charged by felony information on March 7, 2003 with statutory rape in the first degree and felony statutory sodomy in the first degree.
- A bench trial was conducted on December 21, 2005, with Paulson found guilty on January 12, 2006.
- This court previously affirmed the conviction in State v. Paulson, 220 S.W.3d 828 (Mo.App. S.D.2007).
- The victim, E.M., testified to repeated sexual acts by Paulson beginning when she was about four, while he was the boyfriend of her mother and living with them.
- At trial, Paulson sought to impeach E.M.'s credibility by presenting Armstrong and Breedlove as witnesses; the trial court ruled on admissibility and strategy.
- Paulson filed a pro se post-conviction motion under Rule 29.15 on April 24, 2007, alleging ineffective assistance for failure to call Armstrong and Breedlove; an evidentiary hearing was held on May 19, 2010, after which the motion court denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did trial counsel err in not calling Armstrong as a witness? | Paulson | Paulson | No; Armstrong’s testimony was irrelevant and inadmissible and would not change the outcome. |
| Did trial counsel err in not calling Breedlove as a witness? | Paulson | Paulson | No; Breedlove lacked availability evidence, and impeachment via Breedlove would have been cumulative and non-prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Hutchison v. State, 150 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. banc 2004) (witness-availability and viability test for ineffectiveness)
- State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886 (Mo. banc 1995) (preference for reasonable professional judgment and strategy)
- Ferguson v. State, 325 S.W.3d 400 (Mo. App. W.D.2010) (impeachment testimony without additional substantive effect is insufficient)
- Worthington v. State, 166 S.W.3d 566 (Mo. banc 2005) (impeachment witnesses must provide more than cumulative impact)
- Marschke v. State, 185 S.W.3d 295 (Mo. App. S.D.2006) (evidence of prior acts or reputation must be admissible and relevant)
- Johnson v. State, 330 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. App. W.D.2010) (preponderance burden for post-conviction claims)