Opinion ID: 6108254
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Addiction and Childhood Trauma Expert

Text: Collings's second point on appeal claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to call an expert psychiatrist to present mitigation testimony about addiction and childhood trauma. His trial counsel knew about his history of alcohol and drug addiction, as well as the emotional neglect and sexual abuse he suffered in childhood. Collings claims expert testimony from a board-certified forensic psychiatrist-such as Dr. Piasecki-about the impact these factors had on his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law would have provided the jury with additional mitigation information. 8 He argues there is a reasonable probability the jury would not have voted for death had his trial counsel called such an expert witness. This Court has recognized, In a death penalty case, trial counsel has an obligation to investigate and discover all reasonably available mitigating evidence. Davis v. State , 486 S.W.3d 898 , 906 (Mo. banc 2016). In performing the first part of the Strickland analysis, courts distinguish between actions that result from inadequate pretrial preparation and those that are the product of trial strategy decisions. Chambers v. Armontrout , 907 F.2d 825 , 835 (8th Cir. 1990). Ineffectiveness is generally clear in the context of complete  failure to investigate because counsel can hardly be said to have made a strategic choice against pursuing a certain line of investigation when s/he has not yet obtained the facts on which such a decision could be made. Id. At the evidentiary hearing, Collings's trial counsel testified about the defense's investigation into evidence supporting the statutory mitigating circumstance related to his substantially impaired capacity. In total, Collings's trial counsel hired eight different expert witnesses from the fields of psychiatry, psychology, neuropsychology, and neuroradiology, and experts on sex offenses and human development. 9 One of the experts hired was Dr. Draper, a human development educator. As explained above, Dr. Draper testified during the penalty phase of trial concerning Collings's emotional development and history of sexual abuse. Despite Collings's argument to the contrary, it is clear his two trial counsel conducted a thorough investigation into possible mitigating circumstances prior to trial. They hired a total of eight experts with experience related to mental disorders and development before ultimately deciding to call only Dr. Draper as an expert witness to testify during the penalty phase of trial. As explained above, Collings's counsel also made a strategic decision not to focus on evidence of his drug and alcohol use as they believed such evidence and argument would antagonize the jury. Trial counsel's selection of which expert witnesses to call at trial is generally a question of trial strategy and is virtually unchallengeable. Davis , 486 S.W.3d at 906 (emphasis added). Collings's trial counsel's strategic decision about what mitigation evidence to present is not a proper basis on which to find ineffective assistance of counsel and to grant Collings postconviction relief. The motion court did not clearly err in denying this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.