Thorson v. State
2011 Miss. LEXIS 451
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Thorson was indicted for capital murder during a 1987 kidnapping of his ex-girlfriend Gloria McKinney.
- On direct appeal the Court affirmed most issues but remanded for a Batson hearing, after which the trial court found no Batson violation.
- Thorson sought post-conviction relief seeking an Atkins hearing; the circuit court held he was not mentally retarded, denying relief.
- The Court in 2010-2011 conducted an Atkins hearing and reviewed multiple IQ tests (scores 77, 70, 79, etc.) and adaptive-functioning assessments.
- The trial court declined to recognize Flynn/ tree-stump effects as controlling, and concluded Thorson did not prove significant subaverage intellectual functioning.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, ruling Thorson failed to prove Atkins prong I by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in admitting the State’s expert testimony | Thorson argues MacVaugh/McMichael lacked Chase qualifications | State contends no objection and proper qualifications; admissible under Chase | No abuse; courts may admit provided qualifications are met. |
| Whether the trial court undervalued Thorson’s experts for adaptive functioning | Dr. Swanson and Dr. Zimmerman showed adaptive deficits before 18 | Trial court found adaptive deficits not proven by preponderance | Court did not err in not relying on Thorson’s adaptive-functioning experts. |
| Whether the court erred in accepting State’s IQ determinations over Thorson’s experts | Thorson’s experts (Zimmerman, Swanson) show subaverage intellect | State’s experts relied on multiple tests; court may credit them | No clear error; IQs above 75 supported denial of Atkins prong I. |
| Whether Flynn/ tree-stump corrections should have lowered Thorson’s IQ to meet Atkins prong I | Flynn/ tree-stump effects reduce scores to 64–72 range | Effects are contested; not adopted by Mississippi; not required here | Court rejected applying Flynn/tree-stump; did not prove IQ ≤75. |
| Whether failure to apply Flynn/ tree-stump impacts Atkins prongs II–IV | Even with adjustments, adaptive deficits exist | Prongs II–IV need not be reached if prong I not proven | No reversal; remaining prongs not reached given lack of prong I proof. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chase v. State, 873 So.2d 1013 (Miss. 2004) (defines Atkins prongs and malingering standard; IQ cutoff discussion)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (prohibits execution of mentally retarded defendants; outlines Atkins framework)
- Foster v. State, 848 So.2d 172 (Miss. 2003) (adopts MMPI-II testing for malingering in Atkins cases)
- Doss v. State, 19 So.3d 690 (Miss. 2009) (standard for reviewing PCR factual findings; abuse-of-discretion context)
- Bowling v. Commonwealth, 163 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. 2005) (discusses IQ cutoff and adaptive deficits in Atkins context)