935 F.3d 1064
10th Cir.2019Background
- Roderick Smith was convicted in Oklahoma state court of the 1993 murders of his wife and four stepchildren and sentenced to death. He later pursued multiple state and federal collateral challenges.
- After Atkins v. Virginia (2002), Smith obtained an Atkins jury trial (2004) in state court that found him not intellectually disabled; the OCCA affirmed. Smith later received resentencing after this court granted relief on a separate ineffective-assistance claim; he was again sentenced to death in 2010.
- Smith filed a federal habeas petition raising (inter alia) an Atkins claim that he is intellectually disabled (Eighth Amendment), a challenge to an Atkins jury instruction requiring the disability be “present and known” before 18, and several ineffective-assistance claims for counsel’s trial/appellate failures in Atkins, competency, and resentencing proceedings.
- The district court denied relief; on appeal the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo legal questions and applied AEDPA deferential standards to state-court merits rulings where appropriate.
- The Tenth Circuit held that the OCCA unreasonably validated the Atkins-trial verdict: (1) the OCCA’s rejection of Smith on the intellectual-functioning prong was an unreasonable factual determination or application of Atkins given consistent low IQ scores and expert testimony; (2) the State conceded Smith met the age-of-onset prong; and (3) de novo review of adaptive-functioning evidence compelled a finding of deficits in at least two adaptive areas (academics, communication).
- The court reversed the denial of habeas relief on the Atkins claim, holding Smith is intellectually disabled as a matter of law and thus cannot be executed; it affirmed denial of ineffective-assistance claims relating to the competency and resentencing trials (failure to introduce a video) and remanded with instructions to vacate the death sentence conditionally.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith is intellectually disabled under Atkins / Murphy (three-prong test: intellectual functioning, age-of-onset, adaptive functioning) | Smith: consistent IQs in the intellectually disabled range, expert testimony, school placement and adaptive deficits compel a finding of intellectual disability | State: lay-witness testimony and State expert (Dr. Call) undermined IQs (malingering/effort), jury reasonably found no disability | Court: Reverse — OCCA unreasonably upheld first-prong finding; State conceded age-of-onset; de novo review shows adaptive deficits in ≥2 areas; Smith is intellectually disabled as a matter of law. |
| Sufficiency of evidence as to intellectual functioning prong (Murphy) under AEDPA/Jackson | Smith: every IQ test before the state court placed him ≤75 (several ≤65); malingering findings unsupported; experts for Smith concluded disability | State: malingering, lay testimony showed functional abilities, evidence supports jury verdict | Court: OCCA’s conclusion that Smith failed first prong was an unreasonable factual determination or unreasonable application of Atkins; IQ and expert evidence compels finding of subaverage intellectual functioning. |
| Sufficiency of evidence as to adaptive-functioning prong (Murphy) — de novo review | Smith: Vineland and WRAT assessments, teacher/employer testimony, institutional testing show profound deficits (academics, communication, social) | State: lay testimony and prison-adaptive strengths rebut deficits; evidence of work/relationships shows functioning | Court: De novo review (OCCA did not adjudicate this prong) — medical/clinical evidence (and Supreme Court guidance rejecting reliance on lay stereotypes or prison strengths) compels finding of deficits in ≥2 adaptive domains. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present video and call Anna Wright at competency/resentencing (and related appellate claim) | Smith: counsel knew of the video and Wright but failed to present them; video would have shown his disability and humanity and likely changed outcome | State: OCCA found counsel made a strategic choice; Wright’s interactions were limited and the video’s persuasive force was debatable; omission was not prejudicial | Held: Affirmed — OCCA reasonably adjudicated Strickland claim; Smith failed to overcome presumption of reasonable strategy or show prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (Supreme Court) (Eighth Amendment forbids execution of intellectually disabled defendants)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court) (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (Supreme Court) (Atkins requires meaningful consideration of clinical standards and IQ measurement ranges)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (Supreme Court) (Moore I) (rejecting reliance on lay stereotypes; emphasize clinical adaptive-functioning standards)
- Moore v. Texas, 139 S. Ct. 666 (Supreme Court) (Moore II) (reinforcing that intellectual-disability determinations must follow medical diagnostic framework)
- Hooks v. Workman, 689 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir.) (Atkins-review framework; weight of IQ scores and expert testimony)
- Pruitt v. Neal, 788 F.3d 248 (7th Cir.) (reversing where state court failed to resolve adaptive-functioning prong and experts agreed on disability)
- Smith v. Mullin, 379 F.3d 919 (10th Cir.) (prior habeas relief on ineffective assistance at sentencing; background on Smith's illiteracy and mitigation evidence)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (Supreme Court) (limits AEDPA review to the state-court record)