Opinion ID: 1311325
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Direct Appeal and State Post-Conviction Proceedings

Text: On appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, McGehee argued that the trial court erred in excluding evidence that McFarland and Epps had received life sentences and in sustaining the state's various objections to mitigation testimony. The Arkansas Supreme Court rejected McGehee's contention that his co-defendants' sentences were relevant, stating that [McGehee] cites no authority or convincing argument in support of his theory, and we are not aware of any. McGehee v. State, 338 Ark. 152, 992 S.W.2d 110, 123 (1999) ( McGehee I ). The court similarly rejected McGehee's contention that the trial court had erred in sustaining the state's objections to parts of Christensen's testimony. With respect to Christensen's statement about what had happened to McGehee's dogs when he was a child, the court held that the trial judge had not erred because it was not clear where defense counsel was going with the testimony. Id. at 124. The court further stated that the anecdote was irrelevant to McGehee's punishment, in light of the fact that the testimony merely described the family's attitude about the death of their dogs, an event that occurred when [McGehee] was just a baby. Id. Moreover, the court concluded that the trial judge had not erred in sustaining the state's objection to Christensen's testimony about the abuse McGehee's sister suffered because it was not clear from [McGehee's] brief how this evidence would [have been] relevant to the issue of his punishment. Id. Alternatively, the court held that the argument was moot, because [a]lthough the State objected to the testimony and the trial court sustained the objection, the jury was never admonished not to consider the evidence. Id. at 125. Finally, pursuant to Rule 4-3(h) of the Arkansas Supreme Court Rules, the court reviewed the record for adverse rulings to which McGehee had objected at trial but not raised on appeal. Finding no reversible error, the court affirmed McGehee's conviction and sentence. Id. McGehee filed a petition for state post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for, among other things, failing to challenge the constitutionality of his sentence on the ground that his co-defendants received lesser sentences and for abandoning any challenge to the victim impact testimony. The trial court denied the petition, and the Arkansas Supreme Court subsequently affirmed, holding that proportionality review of death sentences was not required and that the admission of victim impact testimony was not unconstitutional. McGehee v. State, 348 Ark. 395, 72 S.W.3d 867, 878-79 (2002) ( McGehee II ).