Opinion ID: 1369544
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Voir dire of Ms. Willis

Text: Storey claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to [r]espondent's voir dire about a punishment preference `for people who go around committing murder first' because this suggested Tim committed other murders[.] The following questioning of Ms. Willis occurred during voir dire: Mr. Moss: Miss Willis, given our discussion so far, could you form the opinion that for killing Miss Frey, Storey should get the death penalty? Ms. Willis: Yes Mr. Moss: If you form that opinion, could you sign a verdict saying that? Ms. Willis: Yes Mr. Moss: Do you have a preference or leaning toward either punishment as the best punishment for people who go around committing murder first. Ms. Willis: No Mr. Moss: Will you hold the State to its burden? Ms. Willis: Yes. When asked why she did not object, counsel responded: No strategy reason. We should have. I think that's an improper comment to make. . . . I think it suggests evidence of other crimes, that he has committed other homicides. The motion court held: The comment requires a broad inference to be drawn from the State's comment in voir dire. Counsel was not ineffective in this regard. This Court agrees with the motion court. It would not be reasonable to think that the jury was misled by this comment into thinking that Storey had a history of murders. Storey has not shown prejudice because he has not shown a reasonable probability that had counsel objected to this comment, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Williams, 529 U.S. at 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495.