Opinion ID: 1466528
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Counsel Was Ineffective as to the Treatment of Dr. Geis' Testimony

Text: This Court has recognized that a claim of ineffective assistance may be found when a movant can prove that (1) trial counsel knew or should have known of the existence of the witness; (2) the witness could be located through reasonable investigation; (3) the witness would testify; and (4) the witness's testimony would have produced a viable defense. Hutchison v. State, 150 S.W.3d 292, 304 (Mo. banc 2004). All the elements of Hutchison are met in this case. The State concedes the first three points that Dr. Geis was known by counsel, available and willing to testify. As to the fourth element, the submission of mental health history, subject to counsel's strategic judgment, is a viable defense during a bifurcated sentencing phase. See Glass v. State, 227 S.W.3d 463 (Mo. banc 2007). As stated earlier, the selection of witnesses and evidence are matters of trial strategy, virtually unchallengeable in an ineffective assistance claim. Williams, 168 S.W.3d at 443. However, this is true [w]here counsel has investigated possible strategies.  Middleton v. State, 103 S.W.3d 726, 736 (Mo. banc 2003) (emphasis added). Here, defense counsel admitted that he gave no consideration to calling Dr. Geis and there was no strategic reason for not calling him. This is not a case where counsel failed to investigate the existence of a mental illness. See e.g. State v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d 485, 509 (Mo. banc 2000); Williams, 168 S.W.3d at 441. Rather, defense counsel actually possessed Dr. Geis' report, and he and Dr. Geis discussed its contents. Counsel recognized problems associated with Vaca's mental condition the moment he met him in the Platte County jail. Counsel's statement in the Rule 29.11 hearing shows that he knew about the report after the trial's completion. Dr. Geis was available and willing to testify on Vaca's behalf. Further, defense counsel was clearly apprised that this may be in issue in the jury's mind. The jury asked four questions to the judge during guilt deliberations regarding Vaca's mental state. Because defense counsel conceded that conviction was probable, he knew that strategy during the sentencing phase was vital to the representation of his client. It is unclear why counsel did not consider whether to admit Dr. Geis' testimony. As it was counsel's first bifurcated non-capital trial, counsel may have erroneously believed the exclusion of mental health evidence during the guilt phase carried over to the sentencing phase. [3] Counsel's inaction fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. This omission, in front of this particular jury, undermines this Court's confidence in the sentencing phase's outcome. While Dr. Geis' testimony and report may have helped Vaca, it may have also embittered the jury. [4] This Court has noted that counsel strategically concluding so has been precisely reasonable in previous sentencing cases. [5] As such, the holding of this case is not that counsel was ineffective for not calling Dr. Geis. Rather, this case rests on the fact that the question of whether to call Dr. Geis was never considered.