 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hutchison v. State12/7/2004
t, he functioned in the bottom eight percent of the population. He then administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Revised, the verbal section, which revealed appellant's IQ to be 76. After administering another test, he found that appellant performed at the fourth-grade level of reading ability. Dr. Bland then added that his personal, clinical observations of appellant were consistent with the test results.
Dr. Bland also testified about appellant's history with alcohol and drug use including an overdose of methamphetamine and appellant's use of alcohol and drugs the night of the murders. He also related appellant's version of the crime, including appellant's assertion that he did not kill the Yates, and appellant's fear of his co-defendants. In conclusion, Dr. Bland testified that appellant was competent to stand trial and that he did understand the charges against him, but that appellant suffered from "borderline intellectual functioning and personality disorder, not otherwise specified."
Dr. Bland's written report was also admitted into evidence. This included appellant's account of his family life, and his express comment that he had a good relationship with his mother and father. The report also reviewed appellant's time in special education and his problems in school, as well as the diagnosis of hyperactivity and an additional diagnosis that he was "manic depressant." Appellant also reported being sexually molested by an uncle at the age of 11. The report also discussed appellant's addiction to drugs and alcohol, his treatment with a social worker and psychiatrist, and his acknowledgment that he was not compliant with drug treatment. The report also discussed appellant's two children and his common law wife, and his efforts to get a job .
In sum, appellant's penalty phase evidence in mitigation was extensive and comprehensive, and counsel painted appellant in the best light possible by highlighting his redeeming qualities and by attempting to garner sympathy by focusing on his many difficulties as a child and young adult. The majority's conclusion that counsel "did not investigate Hutchison's medical, educational, family, and social history and did not present available evidence of Hutchison's emotional and intellectual impairment" is a gross mischaracterization of the record.
Finally, it bears mention that the majority's repeated reliance on the holdings of Wiggins v. Smith , 123 S.Ct. 2527 (2003) overlooks the facts of that case. In Wiggins , counsel elected to focus their efforts in penalty phase by "retrying the factual case," rather than introducing evidence in mitigation, except to show that the defendant had no prior convictions. Id . at 2533, 2543. Counsel did not even inquire about defendant's life history and social history, and as a result was wholly unaware of the fact that defendant had been subjected to repeated instances of sexual abuse and molestation. Id . at 2541. The gist of the opinion, of course, is that counsel could not have made a reasonable strategic choice to forego evidence in mitigation without having conducted a reasonable investigation. Id . at 2543. In the case at hand, though, as the record shows, counsel for Hutchison made that reasonable investigation.
For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel in either phase of the trial and affirm the motion court's judgment in all respects.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|