Opinion ID: 1704647
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: alternating theories of prosecution

Text: In this claim, Davis argues that the State used inconsistent theories in the trials of Valessa and Davis, advocating in each trial that the respective defendant was the actual murderer. The postconviction court denied this claim in brief, stating: [A] review of the State's opening and closing statements in Valessa Robinson's trial, as well as the direct examination of Jon Whispel in Valessa Robinson's trial, reveals that the State never argued that Valessa Robinson stabbed her mother. Rather, during Valessa Robinson's trial, the State maintained that Adam Davis had actually stabbed Vicki Robinson. Therefore, the State did not alternate between inconsistent theories of prosecution. Postconviction Order at 22-23 (record citations omitted). We affirm the postconviction court's denial of this claim. A review of the record in Valessa's trial demonstrates that the State's theory was that Valessa was a principal to the murder of Ms. Robinson, not the primary perpetrator. In the State's opening statement, the prosecutor argued that Davis inflicted the final, fatal stab wounds. The State later called Jon Whispel to testify and elicited testimony showing that Davis committed the murder with Valessa's assistance. In closing arguments, the State continued its theme of Valessa as principal by making statements such as: [Valessa] had Adam Davis wrapped right around here. He would do anything for her, anything. He did do anything for her. He murdered Vicki Robinson. The prosecutor also stated: I want you to remember this. This is probably the most important law that applies to this situation, this principal instruction. The State consistently argued that Davis was the actual murderer and Valessa was a principal. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of this claim.