Opinion ID: 1702189
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Failure to Develop and/or Present Effective Mitigation Evidence

Text: ¶ 30. Berry argues that counsel failed to call family members to testify and failed to call social worker Hope Stone to testify, but instead, relied solely on professional witnesses. This issue is without merit. ¶ 31. Berry states that, by relying on professional witnesses, counsel overlooked an abundance of evidence that family members could have provided. He claims that but for this failure there was a reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings would have been different. See Burns, 813 So.2d at 673. ¶ 32. On resentencing, the defense presented three witnesses: Dr. Paul Blanton, Hope Stone, and Lewis M. Tetlow. Their testimony is discussed in greater depth under Issue IX, supra. ¶ 33. Berry fails to cite support for his claim that reliance on professional witnesses may serve as grounds for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Instead, he presents numerous affidavits from family and friends who discuss their opinions and knowledge of his mental problems and personal troubles. Nevertheless, the argument fails to show how counsel's performance was deficient. We find that, by presenting three professional witnesses and emphasizing Berry's mental and personal problems, counsel sought to invoke sympathy from the jury and prove that Berry lacked the capacity to appreciate his actions. Therefore, there is no indication that counsel conducted himself outside the professional norms.
¶ 34. Berry raises many of the same claims for prosecutorial misconduct that were addressed in Berry II. At that time, we held that [h]aving reviewed each of his allegations, we find no single or cumulative error warranting reversal of Berry's sentence. The prosecutor's conduct was not such that it deprived Berry of a fundamentally fair trial. Berry II, 703 So.2d at 282 (citations omitted). This claim is barred pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21 (2000).
¶ 35. Berry claims that the State committed a Brady violation by withholding the results of a DNA test, which he claims was exculpatory. Because the results were not exculpatory, this issue is without merit. ¶ 36. During the original trial, the State presented as a witness Deborah K. Haller, a forensic toxicologist with the state crime lab. On cross-examination, when asked whether DNA testing had been conducted, Haller responded affirmatively that, at the time of the trial, testing was still being conducted, effectively preventing her from testifying as to the results. ¶ 37. Berry claims that he failed to receive the results even after he requested production in preparation for resentencing. The State responds that, because it was previously determined during the original trial, guilt was not at issue during resentencing. With a copy of the report accompanying its brief, the State emphasizes that the results conclusively showed that the blood on Berry's tennis shoe was indeed that of the victim. ¶ 38. Though it is unclear why the State failed to produce a copy of the report, such failure does not warrant an evidentiary hearing. Berry fails to show how the State's failure deprived him a fundamentally fair trial during resentencing.
¶ 39. Berry claims that Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-103 requires a jury to find the aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the verdict from resentencing was in violation because it failed to state such explicitly. [3] Because this issue was not raised in the direct appeal following resentencing, this issue is procedurally barred pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21 (2000). ¶ 40. Procedural bar notwithstanding, our decision in Williams v. State, 684 So.2d 1179 (Miss.1996), is directly on point. Section 99-19-103 provides, in part: The statutory instructions as determined by the trial judge to be warranted by the evidence shall be given in the charge and in writing to the jury for its deliberation. The jury, if its verdict be a unanimous recommendation of death, shall designate in writing, signed by the foreman of the jury, the statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances which it unanimously found beyond a reasonable doubt. (emphasis added). We held that, while the jury is required to find the existence of each aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no authority for the proposition that the jury must actually write the words `beyond a reasonable doubt' in its verdict. Williams, 684 So.2d at 1208. ¶ 41. This Court has held on numerous occasions that when a trial court instructs the jury, it is presumed the jurors follow the instructions of the court. Id. at 1209; see also Crenshaw v. State, 520 So.2d 131 (Miss.1988); McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130 (Miss.1987); Johnson v. State, 475 So.2d 1136 (Miss.1985). ¶ 42. This issue is without merit.
¶ 43. The decision to admit Berry's confession was affirmed in the direct appeals following both the first trial and resentencing. See Berry I, 575 So.2d at 8; Berry II, 703 So.2d at 291. Seemingly, Berry takes issue with the resentencing court's decision not to allow him the opportunity to attack the confession or to argue to the jury how it was procured. Berry's argument is difficult to follow, but misses much of the issue. [4] ¶ 44. This issue seems to concern a defendant's ability, during resentencing, to rebut evidence which was previously found admissible during the guilt phase. Thus, Berry claims that, by allowing the confession to be admitted unrefuted, the resentencing court violated his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Because Berry's argument is based on such constitutional provisions, the application of the procedural bar is avoided. ¶ 45. Citing Berry I and Berry II, the State counters that this contention is barred under both res judicata and Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(2000). See Holland v. State, 705 So.2d 307, 321-29 (Miss.1997) (On appeal from a resentencing trial for capital murder, the issue of guilt is res judicata and cannot be relitigated.) In Holland, a plurality of the Court considered this issue extensively and held that it was not an error to prevent a defendant, on resentencing, from presenting evidence or arguing residual doubt as to the validity of his conviction. Id. at 327. ¶ 46. Berry does not argue how or why he sought to controvert the confession and how such would have been relevant to his case in resentencing. Instead, he leaves it for us to divine his purpose or whether it was in an effort to advance his case for mitigation. Generally, [d]efendants should be given broad latitude in introducing mitigating circumstance evidence restricted only by the requirement that the evidence must be relevant. Davis v. State, 512 So.2d 1291, 1293 (Miss.1987). Likewise, in Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986), the Supreme Court stated that a defendant must be allowed to rebut or defend against evidence introduced against himself. Accord. in Holland, 705 So.2d at 324. ¶ 47. Another case on point is Atkins v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 375, 534 S.E.2d 312 (2000), rev'd on other grounds, Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). In the direct appeal following resentencing, Atkins argued that the resentencing court improperly prevented him from questioning the investigator about his confession. 534 S.E.2d. at 314. Based on such, the court inhibited the jury's consideration of mitigating evidence. Id. at 315. Atkins claimed that such information was relevant to issues of his remorse and cooperation with law enforcement authorities, both of which are proper subjects of mitigating evidence. Id. Rejecting his argument, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the information that Atkins sought to elicit would have improperly raised questions of his guilt and that a defendant is not allowed to argue or present evidence of residual doubt at a new sentencing hearing. Id. at 315-16. ¶ 48. This issue is without merit.
¶ 49. First, Berry claims that the sentencing instructions prevented the jury from considering all the evidence presented regarding his mental problems. He recognizes that we considered this issue in Berry II, but argues that its review was flawed because we placed too much reliance on the catchall instruction and should reconsider the catchall in light of Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 121 S.Ct. 1910, 150 L.Ed.2d 9 (2001) ( Penry II ); and because we misapplied Blystone v. Pennsylvania 494 U.S. 299, 110 S.Ct. 1078, 108 L.Ed.2d 255 (1990), which is distinguishable from the instant case. The State argues that the matter is procedurally barred. ¶ 50. In Berry II we considered whether the jury instructions limited consideration of his mental state. We dismissed this issue citing the inclusion of the catchall provision and the fact that defense counsel argued exhaustively to the jury that they should not impose the death sentence due to the extenuating circumstances relating to Berry's mental and emotional state. Berry, 703 So.2d at 287. ¶ 51. Berry argues that the issue in Blystone was whether Pennsylvania's capital statute violated the Eighth Amendment. He argues that any reliance on the majority's discussion regarding instructions or catchall provisions is misplaced because it was not directly at issue. For this point, he cites the Justice Brennan's dissent in Blystone . 494 U.S. at 316 n. 5, 110 S.Ct. 1078. Such claims regarding our analysis from Berry II should have been raised on motion for rehearing and is therefore procedurally barred. The analysis now shifts to the issue regarding the closing arguments by the State and the Supreme Court's holding in Penry II. ¶ 52. Second, Berry argues the State misled the jury because it made the jury believe that, because he was competent to stand trial, all other evidence should not be considered; and that there was a heightened standard for mitigating evidence. The State's closing may have confused jurors in regards to evidence of mental and emotional problems. The State argued, inter alia, that: ... the bottom line, [Berry is] competent to stand trial, competent to know right from wrong, in his mind competent to be executed.... In doing so, the State argued in unison issues of insanity, competency, and mental retardation. The State argued that, because he knew the difference between right and wrong and because he was competent to stand trial, Berry was competent under the law to be executed. As noted later in the discussion of mental retardation, supra, competency, mental retardation, and insanity are distinct principles that are not used interchangeably. Berry claims that the decisions from Penry I and Penry II support his position. However, these two cases do not support Berry's claim regarding the State's closing. ¶ 53. In Penry I, the Supreme Court considered whether the jury instructions during capital sentencing allowed the jury the ability to properly consider the mitigating evidence of the defendant's mental retardation and childhood abuse. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989) ( Penry I) . The Court ruled that in a capital murder trial the jury should be able to consider and give effect to [a defendant's mitigating] evidence in imposing sentence. Id. ¶ 54. In Penry II, the Supreme Court considered whether on resentencing the state court complied with its holding from Penry I. Finding that it did not, the Supreme Court stated that instructions that mere[ly] mention or instruct the jury to consider mitigating circumstances do not satisfy the Eighth amendment. Penry II, 532 U.S. at 797, 121 S.Ct. 1910. The Court found the sentencing instructions to be internally contradicting, id. at 798, 121 S.Ct. 1910, and suggested that the contradiction may be resolved by considering that instructions in the light of all that had taken place at the trial (i.e., comments by the court or either side) or with the presence of a more clearly drafted catchall instruction on mitigating evidence. Id. at 803-04, 121 S.Ct. 1910. However, without such, the Court held that a reasonable juror could well believe that there was no vehicle for expressing their view [that the defendant] did not deserve to be sentenced to death based upon his mitigating evidence. Id. at 804, 121 S.Ct. 1910. ¶ 55. Considering how the instructions may have been clarified, the Supreme Court stated, Moreover, even if we thought that the arguments of defense counsel could be an adequate substitute for statements of the law by the court,... the prosecutor effectively neutralized defense counsel's argument, ... by stressing the jury's duty `[t]o follow your oath, the evidence and the law.' Id. at 802, 121 S.Ct. 1910 (citation omitted). Berry maintains that similarly, the State's closing argument effectively neutralized defense counsel's closing argument. The instant case is easily distinguishable from Penry II, which is therefore not applicable, because there is no alleged internal contradiction with the instructions presently at issue. ¶ 56. Post-conviction review based on the jury instructions and the State's closing argument is denied. Though we are concerned with the State's interchangeable use of the principles of mental retardation, competency and insanity, this alone does not warrant review.
¶ 57. This is one of several cases before the Court raising this same issue. Two articles have been helpful: Janice L. Kopec, Ring v. Arizona 122 S.Ct. 2428 (2002) Allen v. United States 122 S.Ct. 2653 (2002) , 15 Cap. Def. J. 143 (2002), and Simon Cantarero, Who Makes the Call on Capital Punishment? How Ring v. Arizona Clarifies the Apprendi Rule and the Implications on Capital Sentencing, 17 BYU J. Pub.L. 323 (2003). ¶ 58. The indictment issued against Berry alleged in part: [That Earl Berry] ... willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and without the authority of law kill and murder Mary Bounds, a human being, while engaged in the commission of the crime of kidnaping of Mary Bounds by forcibly seizing and confining Mary Bounds, without lawful authority, with the intent to cause her to be secretly confined or imprisoned against her will, in violation of Section 97-3-19(2)(e) of the Mississippi Code of 1972, Annotated, as amended ... indicted as an habitual criminal as under Section 99-19-81 ... He claims that there can be no dispute that the indictment lacks allegations of aggravating circumstances. [5] But the indictment did present the aggravating circumstances on which the State intended to rely on and satisfied the additional state notice requirement in capital matters. See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-17-20 (2000). Despite this, we will analyze the issue assuming Berry's interpretation of the indictment. ¶ 59. The decisions in Ring and Apprendi did not address state indictments, and Jones was based on a federal criminal statute and the Fifth Amendment, which is not applicable to the states. Berry argues that his indictment was unconstitutional because it failed to include and specify the aggravating factors used to sentence him to death. For support, he relies on Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 119 S.Ct. 1215, 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). Because Ring is an intervening decision, this issue avoids the procedural bar. ¶ 60. In Jones, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the federal carjacking statute provided for three distinct offenses or a single crime with a choice of three maximum penalties, two of which were dependent on sentencing factors exempt from the requirements of charge and jury verdict. Jones, 526 U.S. at 229, 119 S.Ct. 1215. Finding that it provided for three distinct offenses with differing punishments based on the degree of violence employed or physical harm inflicted, the Court held that the aggravating factors necessary to trigger the escalating penalties fell within the province of the jury. Id. at 251-52, 119 S.Ct. 1215. Succinctly, the Court stated: [U]nder the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., at 243 n. 6, 119 S.Ct. 1215 (emphasis added). ¶ 61. In Apprendi, the defendant was arrested after he fired several shots into the New Jersey home of an African-American family. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 469-70, 120 S.Ct. 2348. Subsequently, he was indicted on numerous state charges, including second-degree possession of a firearm. Id. He then was convicted of, inter alia, second-degree possession of a firearm, an offense carrying a maximum penalty of ten years. On the prosecutor's motion, the sentencing judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime had been motivated by racial animus. As such, it triggered the state hate crime enhancement resulting in the judge sentencing the defendant to twelve years, two years over the maximum but for the enhancement. Id. ¶ 62. On certiorari, Apprendi argued, inter alia, that due process required that the finding of bias upon which his hate crime sentence was based must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Relying in part on Jones, the Supreme Court agreed, stating: Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. ¶ 63. Relevant to the instant appeal, the Apprendi Court noted, Apprendi has not here asserted a constitutional claim based on the omission of any reference to sentence enhancement or racial bias in the indictment.... We thus do not address the indictment question separately today. Id. at 477 n. 3, 120 S.Ct. 2348. ¶ 64. Finally, in Ring v. Arizona , the Supreme Court considered whether the Arizona capital sentencing regime was still constitutional following its holding from Apprendi. Arizona law provided that after the defendant was convicted by a jury, the trial judge was required to conduct a hearing and make the final determination by a preponderance of evidence as to the presence of aggravating factors required for the imposition of the death penalty. Ring, 536 U.S. at 587, 122 S.Ct. 2428. [6] Finding it unconstitutional, the Court stated: [W]e overrule Walton to the extent that it allows a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty. See 497 U.S. at 647-649, 110 S.Ct. at 3047. Because Arizona's enumerated aggravating factors operate as the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense, Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 494 n. 19, 120 S.Ct. 2348, the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury.    The guarantees of jury trial in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered.... If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of a jury to the more tutored but perhaps less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it. The right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment would be senselessly diminished if it encompassed the factfinding necessary to increase a defendant's sentence by two years, but not the factfinding necessary to put him to death. We hold that the Sixth Amendment applies to both. Ring, 536 U.S. at 609, 122 S.Ct. 2428 (citation omitted). ¶ 65. The practical function of the Ring decision was only to clarify the fact that in the functional equivalent doctrine, there was no distinction in capital matters and that under the Sixth Amendment any fact that is such must be found by a jury. ¶ 66. In the instant appeal, Berry argues that, because the Ring relied in part on the reasoning from Jones, which was subsequently relied on in Apprendi, states are now obligated to comply with its holding with the indictment requirement. We disagree for two reasons, which the Ring Court conveniently noted in footnote number four of the majority opinion. In it, the Supreme Court stated: Ring's claim is tightly delineated: He contends only that the Sixth Amendment required jury findings on the aggravating circumstances asserted against him.... Finally, Ring does not contend that his indictment was constitutionally defective. See Apprendi, 530 U.S., at 477, n. 3, 120 S.Ct. 2348 ( Fourteenth Amendment has not ... been construed to include the Fifth Amendment right to `presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury '). Ring, 536 U.S. at 597 n. 4, 122 S.Ct. 2428 (emphasis added). ¶ 67. First, like Apprendi, the Ring Court specifically noted that its opinion did not address the constitutionality of the indictment; and therefore, it never spoke to whether states are required provide such charges in their indictments. ¶ 68. Second, Berry's argument requires reading together the decisions from Jones, Apprendi , and Ring. However, Apprendi and Ring were based on the guarantees contained in the Sixth Amendment. Jones addressed a federal statute and was based on, in addition to the Sixth Amendment's notice and jury trial guarantees, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which does not apply to the states. See Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959); Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 4 S.Ct. 111, 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884). Thus, Berry's argument is without merit. ¶ 69. The State cites the same reasons why we should reject Berry's argument. In addition, the State argues that even if the Apprendi and Ring cases were applicable, they could not be applied retroactively. Because Berry's argument is without merit, analysis of potential retroactivity is omitted.
¶ 70. Berry argues that, although Mississippi's capital sentencing regime is not identical to the Arizona regime, Mississippi's scheme is sufficiently similar to render it unconstitutional under Ring. Mississippi's capital scheme is distinct from Arizona's in the single, most relevant respect under the Ring holding: that it is the jury which determines the presence of aggravating circumstances necessary for the imposition of the death sentence. See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (2000). ¶ 71. Likewise, the Ring court considered Mississippi's scheme to be part of a majority of states who have responded to its Eighth Amendment decisions and require that juries make the final determination as to the presences of aggravating circumstances. Ring, 536 U.S. at 608 n. 6, 122 S.Ct. 2428. ¶ 72. This issue is without merit.
¶ 73. Berry's argument is based on the holdings of two United States District Courts: Although the Ring decision explicitly did not discuss whether a defendant was entitled to grand jury indictment on the facts that, if proven, would justify a sentence of death, ... the clear implication of the decision, resting as squarely as it does on Jones, is that in a federal capital case the Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury indictment will apply. United States v. Fell, 217 F.Supp.2d 469, 483 (D.Vt.2002). Fell is not a federal capital case, and there is nothing to show that this Fifth Amendment right is applicable to a state capital case. In any event, the Second Circuit has vacated the district court judgment in Fell. United States v. Fell, 360 F.3d 135 (2d Cir.2004). Berry also cites United States v. Lentz, 225 F.Supp.2d 672 (E.D.Va.2002), which makes the same finding, but once again deals with the Federal Death Penalty Act, or FDPA. ¶ 74. Berry also relies on the United States Supreme Court decision of Allen v. United States, 536 U.S. 953, 122 S.Ct. 2653, 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002). In a memorandum decision, the Supreme Court stated the following: The judgment [in Allen ] is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Ring v. Arizona .  This decision is confusing to this writer for two reasons: (1) Allen is a federal capital case while Ring is a state capital case and (2) the holding in Ring was that only a jury could find an aggravating circumstance necessary for the imposition of the death penalty. This issue was not considered in Allen because under the Federal Death Penalty Act, a jury must find the aggravating factors. See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 758 (8th Cir.2001) (The framework of the FDPA passes constitutional muster because it does not allow imposition of the death penalty unless the jury first finds at least one statutory aggravating circumstance.) ¶ 75. One issue raised in Allen was the issue Berry raises here, that of his indictment being defective because it did not contain the aggravating factors. The Eighth Circuit in Allen found that Allen's indictment was not defective even though it did not contain the aggravating factors. If this is the basis on which Allen is being reversed, it seems odd to cite Ring to do it. The question of what an indictment must contain in a state capital case was not before the Ring Court. In Apprendi, the Supreme Court stated that the Fifth Amendment right to indictment had never been applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has not found that state capital defendants have a constitutional right to have all aggravating circumstances listed in their indictments. ¶ 76. The State argues that the decision in Ring does not apply retroactively, citing Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 663, 121 S.Ct. 2478, 150 L.Ed.2d 632 (2001), where the Court stated: We thus conclude that a new rule is not `made retroactive to cases on collateral review' unless the Supreme Court holds it to be retroactive. We agree. The Supreme Court has recently held that Ring announces a procedural rule and does not apply retroactively to death penalty cases already final on direct review. Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004).
¶ 77. Berry claims that he is entitled to a proportionality review as provided by Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-105 (2000) and that such is required under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. [7] Because this issue was considered on direct appeal following resentencing, this issue is barred pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21 (2000). See Berry II, 703 So.2d at 293-94.
¶ 78. Berry raises two issues regarding mental retardation: 1) who determines mental retardation under Atkins; 2) whether he is mentally retarded under Atkins.