Bucklew v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the denial of Russell Earl Bucklew's motion for post-conviction relief under Missouri Rule 29.15. The court rejected claims of ineffective assistance based on counsel's decisions not to call certain expert and lay witnesses, failure to object to penalty-phase closing arguments, and opening the door to evidence of a prior assault. The court held that the challenged decisions were reasonable trial strategy, cumulative, nonprejudicial, or otherwise permissible under Missouri law.

Holdings

1. Bucklew did not establish ineffective assistance because counsel's decision not to call Aiken was a reasonable strategic decision in light of the mixed impact and potentially damaging cross-examination of Aiken's testimony, and the proposed testimony was cumulative.
2. The motion court did not clearly err in denying relief because Gelbort's proposed testimony was cumulative in the penalty phase, unpersuasive as to guilt, and would not have created a reasonable probability of a different result.
3. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to object because victim-impact evidence and related argument concerning the effect of the crime on the victim and the victim's family are admissible, and Bucklew did not establish prejudice.
4. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to object because the prosecutor's argument was rhetorical and based on the evidence, did not imply special personal knowledge, and did not constitute improper argument.
5. The motion court did not clearly err in denying relief because the proposed testimony was cumulative, potentially harmful on cross-examination, or otherwise insufficient to establish a reasonable probability of a different result.
6. Counsel was not ineffective for mentioning Bucklew's prior assault of Ray because the opening statement opened the door and the evidence was independently admissible to establish motive and intent rather than propensity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call corrections expert James Aiken to rebut evidence concerning Bucklew's future dangerousness.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call clinical psychologist Michael Gelbort.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's victim-impact closing argument during the penalty phase.
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's penalty-phase argument concerning the death penalty and the seriousness of the crime.
5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call five penalty-phase witnesses.
6. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for opening the door to evidence of Bucklew's prior assault of Stephanie Ray.

Disposition

affirmed