In re Morrell

Summary

The Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, resolves cross-motions for summary judgment in Richard Morrell’s post-conviction relief action alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concludes that trial counsel’s failure to object to the authentication of a home-surveillance video and to prejudicial officer testimony fell below constitutional standards and created a reasonable probability of a different result. Morrell’s motion is granted, the State’s motion is denied, his conviction is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The Vermont Supreme Court's conclusion that admission of the video was not plain error did not resolve whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the video.
2. Morrell established that trial counsel's failure to object to the home-surveillance video constituted deficient performance because the video likely would not have been admitted under the authentication theory advanced by the State.
3. Morrell established prejudice because the video was crucial evidence and there was a reasonable probability that the criminal case would have had a different outcome without its admission.
4. Summary judgment was proper for Morrell because the material facts were undisputed and the remaining authentication and ineffective-assistance questions could be resolved as matters of law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defense counsel's failure to object to the admission of the home-surveillance video constituted deficient performance.
2. Whether there was a reasonable probability that the criminal proceeding would have had a different outcome if counsel had objected to the video.
3. Whether the Vermont Supreme Court's determination that admission of the video was not plain error foreclosed Morrell's ineffective-assistance claim.
4. Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the undisputed facts.

Disposition

vacated