Strain v. State
2012 Ark. 42
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Strain was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 300 months in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
- Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction; Supreme Court denied review.
- Strain filed a postconviction relief petition under Rule 37.1 alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- The circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied relief.
- This court reviews postconviction denials for clear error under Strickland v. Washington standard.
- The court held that none of Strain’s ineffective-assistance claims were proven; conviction supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not preserving sufficiency for appeal | Strain contends more specific directed-verdict challenges would show insufficiency. | State argues the verdict was supported by substantial evidence and preservation failed. | No reversible error; substantial evidence supported first-degree murder conviction. |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request specific jury instructions | Omission of mere-presence, 5-2-406, and 5-2-403 instructions prejudiced trial. | Instructions given already covered the law; requesting others was unnecessary or ineffective. | No prejudice; other instructions sufficed and no reasonable probability of different outcome. |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to seek severance | Severance was warranted due to antagonistic defenses and trial strategy. | Severance is primarily trial strategy; defenses were not antagonistic enough to require severance. | Not prejudicial; severance not required given joint defenses and appropriate case management. |
| Whether counsel was ineffective regarding a witness's prior inconsistent statement | Counsel should have objected or sought a limiting instruction to keep the prior statement from being used for truth. | Rule 612(a) procedures applied; statement was used to refresh memory, not admitted as evidence of truth. | No ineffective assistance; proper procedures and record showed no improper use of the prior statement. |
| Whether the alternative negligent-homicide reduction argument was reviewable | If directed-verdict motion included a charge reduction, relief could follow. | No ruling on the issue; even if preserved, substantial evidence supported conviction. | Omitted ruling aside, the result would remain the same given substantial evidence for first-degree murder. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 336 Ark. 191 (1999) (applies to 5-2-406 and accomplice liability concepts)
- Henderson v. State, 349 Ark. 701 (2002) (mere presence implicit in accomplice instruction when otherwise supported)
- Galloway v. State, 330 Ark. 143 (1997) (accomplice liability and related instructions)
- Webb v. State, 326 Ark. 878 (1996) (mere presence not required when evidence shows participation)
- Whiteside v. State, 383 S.W.3d 859 (2011) (no distinction between principals and accomplices for liability purposes)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (required showing of prejudice under Strickland in light of all evidence)
- Lawshea v. State, 357 S.W.3d 901 (2009) (explains culpable mental state and accomplice liability alignment)
- Jones v. State, 984 S.W.2d 432 (1990) (statutory considerations for multiple defendants and differing culpability)
- Ventress v. State, 794 S.W.2d 619 (1990) (applicable to model and non-model jury instructions)
- Wilson v. State, 222 S.W.3d 171 (2006) (instructions coverage and necessity)
- Henderson v. State, 80 S.W.3d 374 (2002) (implicit inclusion of mere-presence element in accomplice instruction)
- Flowers v. State, 2010 Ark. 364 (2010) (trial strategy and Rule 37.1)
- Sykes v. State, 2011 WL 4635021 (2011) (review of rule 37.1 issues; handling omitted rulings)