State v. Shockley
2013 Mo. LEXIS 51
| Mo. | 2013Background
- Shockley was convicted of first-degree murder for Sgt. Graham's death and sentenced to death after the jury could not reach a punishment verdict; the trial court performed an independent review and imposed death per §565.030.4.
- State theory alleged Shockley killed to stop the investigation into Bayless’s death; defense argued police improperly focused on him and that investigation was biased.
- Evidence included circumstantial proof linking Shockley to the murder scene (car near scene, firearms-related evidence, and related conduct) and his prior conduct and statements influencing the investigation.
- Multiple trial issues were raised on appeal: transcript sufficiency, prosecutorial comment on failure to testify, alleged improper character evidence, jury instructions in the penalty phase, juror 58 issue, and mitigation/aggravation weighing; proportionality review was conducted.
- Missouri statutes authorize appellate proportionality review in death cases and permit the judge to impose a death sentence when the jury deadlocks after finding aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt and determining mitigating factors do not outweigh aggravators.
- Court affirmed the death sentence, finding no reversible error and that the sentence was not disproportionate to the crime and the defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcript sufficiency for review | Shockley: transcript incomplete/erroneous | Shockley: record defects prejudicial; remand warranted | No reversible error; record sufficient and defects non-prejudicial |
| Prosecutor's comment on failure to testify | Shockley: indirect comment prejudicial | State's remark not direct/unduly prejudicial; could be cured | Not plain error; instruction given and comment not decisive |
| Admission of 'violent history' as character/propensity evidence | Shockley: improper propensity evidence | Evidence explained police action; opened door to testimony | Admissible as explanation; no reversible error; not improper propensity evidence |
| Constitutionality of §565.030.4 and judge-fact weighing upon deadlock | Shockley: violates jury sentencing and Caldwell principles | Statute properly structures weighing; judge may decide after deadlock | Constitutional; procedure valid under Whitfield/McLaughlin; does not undermine jury role |
| Proportionality of death sentence | Shockley: death disproportionate given circumstantial strength | Circumstantial evidence strong; comparable cases support death | Not disproportionate; supported by circumstantial evidence and case law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 318 S.W.3d 618 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard for reviewing evidence in favor of jury verdict)
- State v. McLaughlin, 265 S.W.3d 257 (Mo. banc 2008) (death-penalty procedure and Ring framework; whether judge may impose after deadlock)
- State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527 (Mo. banc 2010) (independent proportionality review in death cases)
- Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985) (prosecutor's statements affecting jury's sense of responsibility; Caldwell doctrine)
- State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47 (Mo. banc 1998) (circumstantial strength in death cases; not per se invalid when circumstantial)