Smith v. State
2012 Mo. LEXIS 117
| Mo. | 2012Background
- Mo. la. appeals post-conviction relief granting new trial for ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- Two armed men robbed Fisca oil station; Kyle Carroll charged and pled guilty; no other conviction at that time.
- Informant Israel Freeland alleged Smith confessed; Freeland testified at Smith’s trial after plea concessions.
- Smith was charged with first-degree robbery and armed criminal action; Carroll not called as a witness; Smith convicted.
- Motion court held evidentiary hearing; Carroll testified he would have testified Smith wasn’t with him; Freeland recanted; counsel admitted no investigation of Carroll.
- Motion court granted relief; court of appeals reversed; this court affirms the motion court’s judgment; Carroll letter suggesting cooperation with prosecution was later revealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to investigate/call Carroll was ineffective | Smith | State | Yes; prejudicial omission established |
| Whether lack of investigation fell outside reasonable strategy | Smith | State | Yes; not a valid strategic choice |
| Whether Carroll’s testimony would have changed outcome | Smith | State | Yes; reasonable probability of different result |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (ineffective assistance standard (performance and prejudice))
- Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28 (Mo. banc 2006) (prejudice showing requires probability of different outcome)
- Middleton v. State, 103 S.W.3d 726 (Mo. banc 2003) (court should not second-guess strategic decisions after thorough investigation)
- Moss v. State, 10 S.W.3d 508 (Mo. banc 2000) (review of counsel’s conduct under Strickland standard)
- Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2009) (strong presumption of effective counsel; must overcome with specific omissions)