Moffett v. State

Summary

The Mississippi Supreme Court considers Eric Moffett’s motions for post-conviction relief following his capital-murder conviction and death sentence. Moffett primarily alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, including failures relating to mental-health investigation, mitigation evidence, and objections to prosecutorial comments. The court denied relief, concluding that the claims lacked merit or failed to satisfy the Strickland standard.

Holdings

1. Moffett failed to establish either deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland. Counsel conducted a mitigation investigation and made a conscious strategic decision to present a Skipper-based mitigation case rather than mental-health evidence that counsel reasonably viewed as inconsistent with the defense theory.
2. Moffett failed to prove ineffective assistance arising from counsel's failure to object to the challenged prosecutorial comments. Viewed in context, the comments either were permissible argument, were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence, or did not create unjust prejudice.
3. Appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the admission of Donald Davis's prior consistent statement because counsel is not constitutionally required to raise every nonfrivolous issue and the underlying evidentiary claim lacked merit.
4. Moffett failed to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to object to testimony describing the victim's injuries as heinous, atrocious, or cruel, or appellate counsel's failure to raise the issue as plain error.
5. Moffett failed to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to renew the motion for a twenty-four-hour cooling-off period between the guilt and sentencing phases.
6. Claims concerning victim-impact testimony and the submission of the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator that had been decided on direct appeal could not be relitigated under the guise of ineffective assistance of counsel.
7. The cumulative-error claims did not warrant reversal because Moffett demonstrated no individual errors requiring reversal and no aggregate collection of errors that deprived him of a fundamentally fair trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to obtain a mental-health evaluation or conduct an adequate mitigation investigation.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to allegedly improper prosecutorial comments, including comments about the death penalty, Moffett's demeanor and remorse, defense counsel, witness credibility, biblical references, and sentencing arguments.
3. Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the admission of a prior consistent statement, testimony concerning the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator, and other asserted errors on direct appeal.
4. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to renew a motion for a cooling-off period between the guilt and sentencing phases.
5. Whether claims concerning victim-impact testimony and the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator were barred by res judicata after being decided on direct appeal.
6. Whether cumulative error required reversal of Moffett's conviction or death sentence.

Disposition

writ_denied