Strong v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the denial of Richard Strong’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief from two first-degree murder convictions and death sentences. The court rejected claims concerning post-trial juror contact, religion-based Batson challenges, trial strategy, evidentiary objections, penalty-phase presentation, and Missouri’s lethal-injection method. The excerpt discusses the Strickland ineffective-assistance standard and the requirements for demonstrating prejudice or structural error.

Holdings

1. A post-conviction movant has no inherent right to contact or interview jurors after trial, and the motion court did not clearly err in refusing permission where Strong offered only generalized allegations of misconduct and sought access to the jury's deliberative thought processes.
2. Counsel's failure to raise religion-based Batson objections did not entitle Strong to post-conviction relief because he neither showed that an unqualified or biased juror served nor demonstrated a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
3. Counsel's decision not to pursue a lack-of-deliberation or second-degree-murder defense was a reasonable strategic choice supported by the evidence and did not constitute ineffective assistance.
4. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to object under Crawford v. Washington to the victim's out-of-court statements because Strong's trial occurred before Crawford was decided.
5. Strong could not obtain post-conviction relief on claims concerning the photographic slide show because the Supreme Court had already reviewed the merits of the photographic and slide-show claims on direct appeal; Rule 29.15 proceedings may not serve as a second appellate review.
6. Strong failed to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's investigation, selection, or presentation of mitigation witnesses and experts.
7. Counsel was not ineffective for declining to present Strong's contradictory videotaped police interview during the penalty phase because the decision was a reasonable strategic choice.
8. Strong's challenge to Missouri's lethal-injection method was not ripe because he had not exhausted his appeals and it was unknown what method or protocol, if any, would be used if execution later occurred.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the motion court erred by refusing to permit post-trial contact with jurors to investigate ineffective-assistance and juror-misconduct claims.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise religion-based Batson objections to the State's peremptory strikes of venirepersons Sylvia Stevenson and Luke Bobo.
3. Whether counsel was ineffective for pursuing a reasonable-doubt defense rather than a lack-of-deliberation or second-degree-murder defense.
4. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object under Crawford to admission of the victim's out-of-court statements concerning an earlier assault.
5. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve objections to the prosecutor's computerized photographic slide show and to record the jury's reactions.
6. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present additional mitigating evidence and witnesses during the penalty phase.
7. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to present Strong's videotaped police interview during the penalty phase.
8. Whether Missouri's lethal-injection method constituted cruel and unusual punishment and whether that claim was ripe.

Disposition

affirmed