Walter Barton v. State of Missouri
2014 Mo. LEXIS 147
| Mo. | 2014Background
- Victim Gladys Kuehler, age 81, was found brutally stabbed and killed in 1991; blood matching the victim was found on Walter Barton's clothing and a blood-spatter expert testified some stains were consistent with medium-to-high velocity impact.
- Barton was tried repeatedly (five trials); convicted and sentenced to death after his fifth trial (2006); this appeal challenges the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion.
- Barton raised numerous ineffective-assistance claims (failure to impeach witnesses, failure to call/consult experts and witnesses, failure to object/request mistrial, penalty-phase strategy complaints) and Brady claims about undisclosed impeachment evidence.
- The motion court held an evidentiary hearing, made credibility findings (crediting trial counsel and discrediting certain post-conviction witnesses), and denied relief; the Supreme Court of Missouri reviews for clear error.
- The court applied Strickland standards for ineffective assistance and Brady/Bagley/Strickler standards for prosecutorial nondisclosure, emphasizing deference to reasonable trial strategy and the motion court’s credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barton) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel failed to impeach key witnesses (Selvidge, Horton) | Impeachment of prior inconsistent statements would have undermined timeline/credibility and altered verdict | Counsel reasonably opted not to impeach emotional/victim witnesses to avoid backlash; had reviewed transcripts; strategy valid | Denied — counsel’s decision was reasonable trial strategy and not prejudicial |
| Failure to call witnesses/experts (Hampton, blood-spatter expert, penalty-phase witnesses) | Missing testimony would have created reasonable doubt or meaningful mitigation to avoid death | Counsel investigated, consulted experts, and strategically declined witnesses to avoid harm or repeat unpersuasive testimony | Denied — counsel conducted reasonable investigation and made strategic choices; no prejudice shown |
| Failure to object/request mistrial for uncalled jailhouse witnesses | Opening statement promised jailhouse testimony implicating Barton; failure to mistrial prejudiced defense | Claim waived (not raised in amended motion) and/or counsel decision was strategic; no prejudice shown | Waived or denied — claim not preserved; motion court’s disposition affirmed |
| Brady nondisclosures (Selvidge misdemeanors; prosecutor file notes re: radio) | State suppressed impeachment evidence that would undermine credibility/timeline and was material | State unaware of convictions; convictions were misdemeanor and of limited impeachment value; notes’ provenance unclear and content was already available | Denied — nondisclosures (if any) not material; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Penalty-phase counsel ineffective (closing argument, failure to present mitigation) | Counsel’s penalty argument was incoherent and counsel failed to present medical/ family mitigation (head injury, fetal alcohol) | Counsel purposely pursued residual-doubt/mercy strategy, avoided witnesses who had been unpersuasive or might confirm guilt | Denied — strategy reasonable; additional mitigation would not create reasonable probability of different sentence |
| Eighth Amendment delay between sentencing and execution | Long delay (>20 years) constitutes cruel and unusual punishment | Claim not raised in amended motion and lacks supporting authority; waived | Waived and denied — appellate waiver and no persuasive authority presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (impeachment evidence falls within Brady disclosure obligations)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (materiality/prejudice standard for Brady claims explained)
- Johnson v. State, 333 S.W.3d 459 (Mo. banc 2011) (deference to motion-court findings; Rule 29.15 standards)
- Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2009) (failure to object in closing argument ineffective-assistance principles)
- State v. Barton, 240 S.W.3d 693 (Mo. banc 2007) (Barton III) (prior appeal affirming conviction and death sentence)