Opinion ID: 180652
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alternative Defenses The Christensen Argument

Text: Moormann argues his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to assert on direct appeal the ineffectiveness of trial counsel in relying exclusively on the insanity defense rather than investigating and pursuing alternative defenses to the first-degree murder charge. He specifically contends his trial counsel should have presented a defense under State v. Christensen, 129 Ariz. 32, 628 P.2d 580 (1981), on the basis of Moormann's purported character trait of acting impulsively and reflexively in response to stressful circumstances. He argues that the assertion of this defense would have prevented the jury from convicting him of first-degree murder. In Christensen, the Arizona Supreme Court held that a defendant charged with committing premeditated murder may put on evidence tending to show that the defendant has a character trait of acting without reflection. Id. at 583. The defendant may then use this character evidence to establish that he acted impulsively and did not premeditate the homicide he is accused of committing. Id. The defendant in Christensen had been charged with the premeditated murder of his ex-wife. Id. at 582. Having admitted to the homicide, the defendant attempted to introduce at trial expert testimony from a psychiatrist establishing that he had difficulty dealing with stress, and that in stressful circumstances his actions were more reflexive than reflective. Id. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the trial court's exclusion of this expert testimony, holding the evidence was admissible under Arizona's counter-part to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1) (permitting an accused to offer evidence of a pertinent trait of his own character). Id. at 582-83. The court, however, went on to limit its holding by stating that although a defendant may use expert testimony to establish that he possesses a character trait of acting impulsively, the expert may not testify specifically as to whether a defendant was or was not acting reflectively at the time of a killing. Id. at 583-84. Moormann contends that had trial counsel conducted a thorough investigation into Moormann's background, counsel would have discovered evidence that competent experts could have used to validate Moormann's claim that Roberta sexually abused him up to and through the day of her death. Those experts could then opine that Roberta's abuse exacerbated Moormann's multiple disabilities and caused him to panic, lose control, and kill Roberta without the reflection necessary for a premeditated murder. In support of this argument, Moormann relies on declarations from licensed mental health professionals discussing the likelihood that Moormann and Roberta had an incestuous relationship and diagnosing the mental deficiencies he would have suffered as a result of this relationship and other aspects of his background. We need not address the reasonableness of trial counsel's decision to rely exclusively on a defense of insanity, however, because trial counsel's failure to investigate and pursue a Christensen defense did not prejudice Moormann. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.). Even if trial counsel had conducted a more thorough investigation into Moormann's background, uncovered the information produced during these habeas proceedings, and supplied it to competent experts to testify about Moormann's purported trait of acting impulsively and reflexively in response to stressful situations, there is no reasonable probability the presentation of this expert testimony at Moormann's trial would have resulted in the jury acquitting him of the first-degree murder charge. As the district court correctly pointed out, no expert would have been allowed to testify that Moormann acted impulsively at the time of the murder. See Christensen, 628 P.2d at 583-84. Instead, the experts' testimony would have been limited to a general description of [Moormann's] behavioral tendencies. Summerlin v. Stewart, 341 F.3d 1082, 1095 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004). This testimony would have had limited probative value given the evidence that Moormann planned the killing. Under Arizona law at the time of Roberta's murder, premeditation required that the defendant act with either the intention or the knowledge that he will kill another human being, when such intention or knowledge precedes the killing by a length of time to permit reflection. Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 13-1101(1) (West 1978). An act was not done with premeditation if it was the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. Id. Premeditation could, however, be as instantaneous as successive thoughts of the mind. State v. Kreps, 146 Ariz. 446, 706 P.2d 1213, 1216 (1985). Overwhelming evidence supported the prosecution's theory that Moormann premeditated Roberta's murder. Moormann told police shortly after his arrest that he tied Roberta up with torn pieces of a towel before he killed her. Although the medical examiner could not verify that Roberta's hands and ankles had been tied, because Moormann severed them from her body postmortem, the medical examiner did discover several small bruises on Roberta's face and additional bruising and fibers inside her mouth that were consistent with her having been gagged prior to her death. Police also found pieces of torn towel in the dumpsters where they discovered parts of Roberta's dismembered body, thus tending to corroborate Moormann's admission that he had tied her up before he killed her. The evidence that Moormann bound and gagged Roberta indicated he had sufficient time to reflect before he killed her, and that the slaying was not the result of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. The prosecution also presented evidence that Roberta had been hit with a moderate degree of force on multiple parts of her body, and that she had been stabbed five or six times with the tip of a knife before she died. The evidence indicated that Moormann went to the convenience store and purchased the knives before he killed Roberta, and that he beat and stabbed her before he suffocated her. Moormann partially corroborated this theory of events when he told police that he hit Roberta a few times before tying her up and then suffocating her. All of these actions demonstrate that Moormann had ample time to reflect before killing Roberta, and they undercut his claims that he either killed her in a moment of rage or, alternatively, he accidentally suffocated her while the two were having sex. The prosecution's theory of premeditation was further supported by the evidence of motive. The documents found in Moormann's prison cell relating to Roberta's will indicate he may have been attempting to obtain her assets before her planned move away from Arizona. One of Roberta's friends testified at trial that Moormann called her on the morning of the murder and asked her to give him a ride to Mesa, Arizona, so that he could see a lawyer. The jury could have inferred this related to the forged will and his plan to obtain control of Roberta's estate. Indeed, the trial court concluded at sentencing that this evidence demonstrated that Moormann committed the murder with an expectation of pecuniary gain. In contrast to the overwhelming evidence of premeditation, there was little evidence to support a theory that Moormann killed Roberta on an act of impulse, even if trial counsel had successfully introduced expert testimony establishing that Moormann acted impulsively and reflexively in response to stressful circumstances. Moormann told the police after his arrest that his mother had made him take his father's place and do things he could not handle, which caused him to lose control and kill Roberta, but he also admitted during the taped portion of his confession that he tied his mother up after they argued and before he suffocated her, indicating he had time to reflect. While Moormann later told a forensic psychiatrist that he had an incestuous relationship with Roberta and that he had accidentally suffocated her with a pillow while they were having sex, the medical examiner testified that he found no evidence of sexual activity and tests run on the sheets and bedspread from the motel room found no evidence of semen. Trial counsel did not therefore render ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and pursue a Christensen defense, because there is no reasonable probability that the presentation of such a defense would have produced a different verdict at Moormann's trial. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. For this reason, the failure of Moormann's appellate counsel to argue trial counsel's ineffectiveness in not presenting a Christensen defense as a basis for reversal of Moormann's conviction was neither deficient representation nor prejudicial. Counsel was not required to raise a meritless issue on direct appeal, and there is no reasonable probability that had counsel raised this claim, the Arizona Supreme Court would have reversed Moormann's conviction. See Jones v. Smith, 231 F.3d 1227, 1239 n. 8 (9th Cir.2000) (no prejudice when appellate counsel fails to raise an issue on direct appeal that is not grounds for reversal); Miller, 882 F.2d at 1434 (appellate counsel remains above objective standard of competence and does not cause client prejudice when counsel declines to raise a weak issue on appeal); Boag v. Raines, 769 F.2d 1341, 1344 (9th Cir.1985) (Failure to raise a meritless argument does not constitute ineffective assistance.).