Summary
The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the denial of Earl Forrest's Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following his convictions and death sentences for three counts of first-degree murder. The court rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel concerning expert examinations, medical records, penalty-phase witnesses, evidentiary objections, voir dire, and mitigating evidence, finding no deficient performance or prejudice. It also denied claims concerning proportionality review and the State's closing argument.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to obtain a PET scan or introduce additional medical records and mitigating testimony.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to evidence concerning a knife and prior California convictions.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State's death-penalty voir dire questions.
- Whether Forrest was entitled to an evidentiary hearing concerning proportionality review, the State's closing arguments, or the State's penalty-phase opening statement.
- Whether Forrest's lethal-injection and clemency claims were ripe for review in a Rule 29.15 proceeding.
Holdings
- A movant seeking post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of trial counsel must establish both deficient performance and prejudice. In a death-penalty case, prejudice requires a reasonable probability that, absent counsel's deficient performance, the jury would have concluded that the aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.
- Counsel is not ineffective for making a reasonable strategic decision not to obtain or present evidence, or for failing to present cumulative evidence, when the movant does not establish resulting prejudice.
- Forrest failed to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to object to the knife evidence or the records of his prior California convictions because the evidence was admissible or cumulative and no prejudice was shown.
- The State's questions asking prospective jurors whether they could publicly return and sign a death verdict were not improper, did not deprive Forrest of due process, and did not support an ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to object.
- A Rule 29.15 movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only when the motion pleads facts, rather than conclusions, that would warrant relief, the record does not refute those facts, and the movant was prejudiced.
- Missouri's proportionality review does not require the court to compile a database or consider every individual similar case, including every case in which a life sentence was imposed; the inquiry considers similar cases as a whole together with the specific crime and aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
- The State's requests that the jury perform its duty and consider society's interests were permissible, and the penalty-phase opening statement was not improperly personalized merely because the prosecutor used the word "I."
- Forrest's challenges to Missouri's lethal-injection method and clemency process were not ripe because the method of execution had not been set and clemency had not been sought.
Key quotations
“A judgment is clearly erroneous when there is a "definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made" after reviewing the entire record.” (708)
“Prejudice occurs when a reasonable probability, "sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome," exists that "but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."” (708)
“the issue when determining the proportionality of a death sentence is not whether any similar case can be found in which the jury imposed a life sentence, but rather, whether the death sentence is excessive or disproportionate in light of "similar cases" as a whole.” (717)
Factual background
Forrest went to Harriett Smith's home concerning an unresolved agreement, shot and killed Smith and Michael Wells, and took a lockbox containing methamphetamine. When law enforcement investigated, Forrest initiated a shootout in which Sheriff Bob Wofford was wounded and Deputy Sheriff Sharon Joann Barnes was killed. Forrest was convicted of three first-degree murders and received three death sentences, which were affirmed on direct appeal.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Forrest of three counts of first-degree murder and recommended death sentences for each murder. The trial court adopted the recommendations, and the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal in State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2006). Forrest then sought post-conviction relief under Missouri Rule 29.15; the motion court denied an evidentiary hearing on most claims, held a hearing on the remaining claims, and denied relief. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed.