Opinion ID: 1869014
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Counsel's Failure to Investigate and Present Mitigating Evidence

Text: Conner first asserts that his attorney was deficient in failing to develop and present evidence of his mental illness during the sentencing phase of his trial. He contends that expert testimony that he was schizophrenic with a history of psychotic episodes and not taking his medication at the time Celeste Brown was murdered would have entitled him to instruct the jury to consider two additional mitigating factors pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(6) when determining his sentence: that the offense was committed while under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance; and, that the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired. The State counters that Conner's attorney did not shirk his duty to investigate his mental health, especially in light of the evaluation made in response to Conner's motion for a mental examination. The issue of Conner's mental health and low intelligence level arose in several contexts throughout the course of his trial, as well as on direct appeal. Conner raised the matter in charging that the circuit court erred in not ordering a competency hearing; that his sentence was disproportionate; that important mitigating evidence was excluded; and that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to compel disclosure of information regarding both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Conner, 632 So.2d at 1247-51, 1265, 1267, 1275. Conner was evaluated at Whitfield State Hospital in March, 1990 by order of the circuit court. In relevant part, the evaluation stated that: The staff was unanimous in the opinion that he is competent to stand trial at the present time. He appears to have a rational as well as factual understanding of the charges against him and he appears capable of assisting his attorney in preparing a defense. With regard to his sanity at the time of the crime, the staff was unanimous in the opinion that he knew the difference between right and wrong in relation to his actions. Mr. Conner has been treated at the [Weems] Mental Health Center for a number of years and has a Schizophrenic diagnosis. We have retained this diagnosis, although he has shown few if any of the symptoms of this disorder during his stay in the hospital. He is on medication and this could account for the lack of symptoms. We have given him a diagnosis of Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified to reflect a long-standing pattern of social discomfort, excessive dependency, and a tendency to take out his anger in indirect and passive ways. Conner, 632 So.2d at 1251. Conner relies primarily on Woodward v. State, 635 So.2d 805 (Miss. 1993) to support his assertion that his attorney's alleged failure to investigate and present evidence of his mental illness constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. In Woodward, as distinguished from the case sub judice, the attorney presented Woodward's mental illness as the sole mitigating factor. Woodward, 635 So.2d at 810. The defense's sole witness throughout the case, who, in his affidavit, indicated that Woodward suffered from a severe psychotic disorder at the time of the crime, was questioned by Woodward's attorney only as to the results of his testing and not about the history or details of Woodward's illness. Noting the attorneys' ineptitude, the Court noted: By not realizing that they could offer Dr. Thurman's testimony about the [sic] Woodward's mental illness without opening the door to unlimited character evidence, Woodward's trial counsel were ineffective. Having made a tactical decision to rely solely on mental illness as a mitigating factor, counsels' failure to offer all of the evidence they had was inexcusable. Woodward, 635 So.2d at 810. Similarly, in Loyd v. Smith, 899 F.2d 1416 (5th Cir.1990), a habeas action upon which Conner also relies, the ineffectiveness of counsel issue arose from the petitioner's attorney's ignorance of the law. The Fifth Circuit stated that: The district court wholly failed to address the state court's implicit finding that the failure to properly investigate stemmed, at least in part, from Hackman's ignorance as to the admissibility of statutory mitigating evidence of mental disease or defect which did not reach the level of insanity under the McNaughten rule. Had Hackman understood the relevance of mitigating evidence, an attempt to develop such testimony could have begun at an earlier stage. Loyd, 899 F.2d at 1425. The court further noted that the district court was correct in stating that Lloyd's attorney had no duty to find an expert who would testify as he wished, but found such a statement to be incongruous in light of the fact that at least one of Lloyd's attorneys was wholly unaware of the admissibility of statutory mitigating circumstances, such as mental disease or defect not rising to the level of insanity. Id. As distinguished from Loyd and Woodward, there is no indication that Conner's attorney acted in ignorance of the law when he failed to call any mental health professionals as witnesses. Based on the evaluation from Whitfield, supra, it hardly seems that further evidence of Conner's alleged personality disorders was necessary. Further, the affidavits of the experts Conner now claims should have been called to testify do little more than establish that he once had been diagnosed as schizophrenic, apparently failed to take his medication on a regular basis and had a history of substance abuse. With the benefit of hindsight, Conner's attorney concedes that, believing his client to be innocent, he devoted all of his energies to the guilt phase of the trial and did not contact any mental health professionals in preparation for the sentencing phase. By the time he realized that evidence of mental illness might be the only hope for reducing Conner's sentence, he was unable to secure the necessary expert witnesses. While it might be tempting to argue that Conner was prejudiced by his attorney's lack of foresight, Conner fails to show that but for the presentation of evidence of his alleged mental illness, the outcome of his trial might have been different. See Billiot v. State, 655 So.2d 1, 17-18 (Miss. 1995) (rejecting argument that death row inmate suffering from paranoid schizophrenia is not competent to be executed).