Opinion ID: 1662097
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prosecutor's Motive to Seek the Death Penalty

Text: Smulls claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and challenge the prosecutor's motive to seek the death penalty. Again, to establish ineffective assistance, Smulls must describe the information his attorney failed to discover, allege that a reasonable investigation would have uncovered the information, and prove the information would have aided his position. White v. State, 939 S.W.2d at 895-96; State v. Twenter, 818 S.W.2d at 640. Further, [t]o show that the prosecutor sought the death penalty for racially discriminatory reasons, defendant must prove that the prosecutor's decision had a discriminatory effect on defendant and that the decision was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. Morrow v. State, 21 S.W.3d at 825. Finally, movant must offer clear proof of discrimination in his own case. State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d at 499. Smulls' motion alleged that: (1) he is an economically disadvantaged African-American, (2) his victims were Caucasian and the crime occurred in an affluent Caucasian suburb, (3) evidence would be presented that in factually similar homicide cases with Caucasian defendants the state did not seek the death penalty, (4) the death penalty was sought in his case because he is African-American, (5) reasonably competent counsel would have investigated and raised this matter, and (6) he was prejudiced. Smulls claims that fear of African-American males because they are causally linked to crime motivated the prosecutor to seek the death penalty. Smulls' evidence in support of these allegations consisted of a Task Force Report on the Status of the African-American Male in Missouri attached to his pleadings, which purportedly showed in capital cases a glaring racial difference that results from the discretionary decisions of prosecutors. This evidence fails to prove purposeful discrimination specific to his case. Morrow v. State, 21 S.W.3d at 825. Furthermore, where, as here, the facts of the case strongly support the existence of statutory aggravating factors, not to mention Smulls' extensive criminal history, the likely motivation for seeking the death penalty is the strength of the prosecution's case. See id.; State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d at 499-500. The record does not warrant an evidentiary hearing, much less a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. Smulls also takes issue with the motion court's refusal to allow interrogatories on this claim. Because the determination to deny the claim without an evidentiary hearing was properly made solely on the motion and the files and records of the case, discovery before the determination of which claims warrant an evidentiary hearing would be premature. See State v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d at 504. Discovery after denial of such a claim is unwarranted because the discovery is no longer relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. Id.