Mallett v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed an order vacating Jerome Mallett’s death sentence in a Rule 27.26 post-conviction proceeding. The court held that the transfer of venue to Schuyler County did not violate due process or equal protection, and that counsel’s failure to object to a misnumbered mitigating-circumstances instruction did not establish ineffective assistance. The court also rejected Mallett’s cross-appeal claims concerning judicial recusal, venue, the “depravity of mind” aggravating circumstance, and ineffective appellate counsel.

Holdings

1. The transfer of venue to Schuyler County did not deny Mallett a fundamentally fair trial or violate due process. The absence of potential Black jurors, the cross-racial nature of the murder, and the venue-selection procedure did not establish identifiable prejudice or an inherently unacceptable probability of prejudice.
2. Mallett failed to establish an equal protection violation because he did not prove purposeful discrimination in the selection of Schuyler County.
3. Trial counsel's failure to object to the erroneous reference in the mitigating-circumstances instruction did not constitute prejudicial ineffective assistance because Mallett failed to show a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.
4. The motion court properly denied relief on the recusal claim and on the renewed venue claim because Rule 27.26 is not a substitute for direct appeal and matters decided or abandoned as trial errors generally cannot be relitigated through post-conviction relief.
5. The motion court did not err in rejecting the claim that the depravity-of-mind aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague in this case.
6. Appellate counsel was not ineffective for declining to raise the claim concerning venireperson Karen Long because counsel reasonably selected and presented stronger claims and did not breach her duty to Mallett.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the transfer of venue to Schuyler County denied Mallett due process because the county had virtually no Black residents and the trial therefore presented a substantial risk of racial prejudice.
2. Whether the venue decision violated equal protection because it allegedly resulted from purposeful racial discrimination.
3. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the erroneous cross-reference in the mitigating-circumstances instruction.
4. Whether Mallett could obtain Rule 27.26 relief on a recusal claim that had been abandoned or presented as trial error on direct appeal.
5. Whether the denial of a further change of venue could be relitigated in post-conviction proceedings.
6. Whether the statutory aggravating circumstance of depravity of mind was unconstitutionally vague.
7. Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for declining to raise a claim concerning the failure to strike venireperson Karen Long for cause.

Disposition

reversed