462 S.W.3d 732
Mo.2015Background
- Richard Strong was convicted in 2003 of two counts of first‑degree murder (victims: girlfriend and her 2‑year‑old) and sentenced to death; convictions and post‑conviction denials were affirmed on state and federal review.
- At pretrial competency evaluation, hospital observation found Strong competent and no signs of severe mental illness; trial counsel did not present mental‑health mitigation or a mental‑disease defense at guilt phase.
- Strong later raised ineffective‑assistance claims for failure to investigate/present mental‑health mitigation; those claims were rejected by the motion court, this Court, and federal courts.
- In 2015 Strong filed a habeas petition arguing the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments bar executing persons who were severely mentally ill at the time of the offense (an argument seeking to extend Ford/Atkins/Roper principles to mens rea/culpability at time of crime).
- The State submitted multiple psychiatric reports (pretrial and postconviction) finding no severe mental illness; Strong submitted a 2006 report diagnosing several disorders but offered limited contemporaneous evidence of severe illness at the time of the murders.
- The Missouri Supreme Court held Strong’s claim procedurally barred (he could have raised it at trial/appeal/post‑conviction) and, because he did not claim current incompetence to be executed, declined to grant habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eighth Amendment forbids executing those who were severely mentally ill at time of offense | Strong: Evolving standards of decency require prohibiting execution of defendants with severe mental illness at offense, like Atkins/Roper groups with diminished culpability | State: No legal authority extends Ford/Atkins/Roper to mental state at time of offense; statutory safeguards existed and defense could have raised these claims earlier | Denied — Court declined to expand Eighth Amendment protections to that class in this habeas petition (procedurally barred) |
| Whether Strong’s claim is procedurally barred from habeas review | Strong: Raises new substantive Eighth/Fourteenth claim now | State: Claims could have been raised at trial, on direct appeal, or in post‑conviction proceedings; habeas is not for claims forfeited for defense‑internal reasons | Held — Procedural bar applies; Strong failed to overcome it |
| Whether Strong showed current incompetence to be executed | Strong: Did not assert current incompetence | State: Presumption of competency stands absent substantial evidentiary showing of current insanity | Held — No competency claim made; execution may proceed under current standards |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present mental‑illness mitigation (as previously raised) | Strong: Counsel should have obtained independent experts and presented evidence of severe mental illness | State: Counsel investigated and reasonably pursued mitigation strategy; experts offered later were one‑sided/limited | Held — Ineffective‑assistance claim was previously rejected on the merits in prior proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) (Eighth Amendment forbids executing prisoners who cannot comprehend reasons for their execution)
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) (execution of the insane violates the Eighth Amendment; competency to be executed must be evaluated based on present mental state)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment prohibits executing intellectually disabled offenders)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (Eighth Amendment prohibits capital punishment for juvenile offenders)
- State ex rel. Woodworth v. Denney, 396 S.W.3d 330 (Mo. banc 2013) (habeas is not available to relitigate claims forfeited for reasons internal to the defense)
- Cole v. Griffith, 460 S.W.3d 349 (Mo. banc 2015) (state may presume a prisoner competent for execution if found competent for trial unless a substantial showing of current insanity is made)
- Strong v. Roper, 737 F.3d 506 (8th Cir. 2013) (federal habeas court rejecting ineffective‑assistance claim regarding failure to present mental‑health mitigation)
- State v. Strong, 142 S.W.3d 702 (Mo. banc 2004) (direct appeal affirming convictions and death sentence)
- Strong v. State, 263 S.W.3d 636 (Mo. banc 2008) (state post‑conviction denial affirmed)