Tyrice Halliburton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A03-1604-PC-685
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2016Background
- In 2008 Sheena Kiska was found brutally stabbed; Halliburton, a neighbor, was later charged with murder and an habitual-offender enhancement; jury convicted and recommended life without parole.
- At trial Halliburton’s mitigation presentation relied on his mother’s testimony and a mitigation expert’s records; counsel expressly declined to present a mental-health or neuropsychological expert.
- Trial counsel testified they obtained voluminous school/medical records (about 10" of files), used a mitigation specialist (Manette Zeitler), interviewed family, and made a tactical decision not to retain a mental-health expert because Halliburton appeared competent and additional expert evidence might be a “double-edged sword.”
- Post-conviction, Halliburton retained Dr. Corby Bubp, a neuropsychologist, who testified Halliburton has frontal-lobe impairment/encephalopathy, cognitive weaknesses in planning/organization, mild impulse/reactivity issues, and increased propensity for criminal behavior.
- Halliburton argued trial counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate and present expert evidence of brain injury at sentencing; the post-conviction court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Halliburton received ineffective assistance of trial counsel at mitigation | Counsel failed to investigate and present expert evidence of brain injury; this could have mitigated culpability | Counsel conducted reasonable mitigation investigation, used a mitigation expert and mother’s testimony, and reasonably declined to present an expert because it could be prejudicial | Court held counsel’s investigation and tactical choices were reasonable; no deficient performance proven |
| Whether further investigation would have been warranted from known records | Records (school, Oaklawn, history of childhood fall) should have prompted neuropsychological examination | Counsel reviewed voluminous records, spoke with family, and found client competent and engaged—so further expert not compelled | Court found the known evidence did not make counsel’s decision unreasonable |
| Whether expert testimony would have produced prejudice (different outcome) | Dr. Bubp’s opinion of frontal-lobe impairment would likely have influenced the jury/sentencer | Dr. Bubp’s testimony also portrayed Halliburton as dangerous and prone to criminality; thus it would not likely produce a better outcome | Court held Halliburton failed to show a reasonable probability of a different result |
| Applicability of Wiggins/Prowell ineffective-assistance precedent | Counsel “shelved” investigation like in Wiggins; failure to identify mental impairment parallels Prowell | Distinguish Wiggins/Prowell: those cases involved more powerful, undiscovered mitigation and/or counsel believing defendant mentally ill from the outset | Court distinguished both cases and applied Strickland standard—no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (failure to discover and present strong mitigation can constitute ineffective assistance)
- Fisher v. State, 810 N.E.2d 674 (standard of review for post-conviction proceedings in Indiana)
- Prowell v. State, 741 N.E.2d 704 (trial counsel’s awareness of mental illness from outset distinguished from present case)
- French v. State, 778 N.E.2d 816 (prejudice inquiry under Indiana ineffective-assistance jurisprudence)