Opinion ID: 4525130
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kirkman-Clark’s Testimony

Text: McFadden next argues the circuit court clearly erred in failing to determine counsel were ineffective by not calling Kirkman-Clark to testify. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call a witness during the penalty phase of trial, a movant must establish, among other requirements, that “the witness could be located through reasonable investigation.” Barton, 432 S.W.3d at 757. McFadden argues Gennetten v. State, 96 S.W.3d 143, 148 (Mo. App. 2003), in which the court held counsel ineffective for failing to locate and present an expert witness who would have presented a viable defense for movant, is analogous. But Gennetten can be distinguished on its facts, as counsel in that case did not attempt to contact or locate the witness at all. Id. at 151. Here, counsel testified they attempted to contact and locate Kirkman-Clark but were unsuccessful. As McFadden did not prove that Kirkman-Clark could have been located through reasonable investigation, he failed to demonstrate counsel were deficient in their attempt to locate Kirkman-Clark. 14 Even if Kirkman-Clark could have been located through reasonable investigation, McFadden has failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to call her as a witness. Because McFadden is arguing counsel were ineffective in failing to call a witness during the penalty phase, “a ‘viable defense’ is one in which there is a reasonable probability that the additional mitigating evidence those witnesses would have provided would have outweighed the aggravating evidence presented by the prosecutor resulting in the jury voting against the death penalty.” Deck, 381 S.W.3d at 346. McFadden asserts Kirkman-Clark would have rebutted evidence of Victim’s good character through her testimony that Victim dealt drugs, carried a gun, and was involved in a drive-by shooting. In her deposition, Kirkman-Clark testified that Victim sold drugs, which she learned by witnessing him receive a phone call and observing another individual waiting for him. As these facts alone do not establish that Victim was selling drugs, Kirkman-Clark’s testimony to that effect would have been an inadmissible, speculative conclusion. See State v. Boyd, 706 S.W.2d 461, 465 (Mo. App. 1986) (“[T]he general rule provides that a lay witness must be restricted to statements of fact, not opinions or conclusions.”). Kirkman-Clark further testified she had heard Victim was involved in a drive-by shooting of her mother’s house. As Kirkman-Clark recognized during her deposition, this testimony would have been inadmissible hearsay. See Tisius, 519 S.W.3d at 422. Accordingly, testimony by Kirkman-Clark that Victim was a drug dealer and was involved in a drive-by shooting would have been inadmissible, and counsel is not ineffective for not presenting inadmissible evidence. Id. 15 McFadden has failed to establish the remainder of Kirkman-Clark’s testimony would have produced a viable defense. Although she testified Victim carried a gun, she later stated the gun was only for protection. Her testimony actually could have negatively impacted McFadden’s defense, as she repeatedly emphasized Victim’s good character, maintaining that he “was nice,” “respectable” and “liked to . . . make people laugh.” As Kirkman-Clark’s testimony would have had only minimal probative value in demonstrating Victim’s violent tendencies and bad character, the circuit court did not clearly err in determining there was not a reasonable probability that McFadden would not have received a death sentence had she testified. B. Failure to Call Additional Expert and Lay Witnesses in Mitigation McFadden argues the circuit court clearly erred in failing to find counsel ineffective for not calling four additional lay witnesses and two additional expert witnesses. When representing a defendant 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). Such mitigating evidence may include “medical history, educational history, employment and training history, family and social history, prior adult and juvenile correctional experience, and religious and cultural influences.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 524 (2003). At the same time, the duty to investigate does not require counsel “to scour the globe on the off-chance something will turn up; reasonably diligent counsel may draw a line when they have good 16 reason to think further investigation would be a waste.” Strong, 263 S.W.3d at 652 (quoting Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 383 (2005)). At the postconviction hearing, counsel testified the defense’s mitigation theory was that McFadden grew up in a bad neighborhood with a home environment that lacked guidance and support. During the penalty phase at trial, counsel called seven lay witnesses, each of whom emphasized the difficulties McFadden experienced growing up in Pine Lawn. Two of McFadden’s aunts and an uncle testified he was a smaller-sized child who was bullied by other children at school and in the neighborhood. McFadden’s father testified that, when McFadden was around seven years old, he often had bruises, black eyes, and scratches. McFadden’s grandmother testified that he did not have a consistent home and stayed with various family members. Lynette Hood, a friend of McFadden’s who lived in Pine Lawn, testified that Pine Lawn is a violent neighborhood and that she often heard gunshots. She stated McFadden was shot in the leg, which led to a decline of his mental health and wellbeing. A St. Louis juvenile officer testified that Pine Lawn is a “violent,” “depressed,” and “difficult place” to live. He further stated McFadden did not have adequate structure in his home life. Counsel also called an expert witness, Dr. Draper, who testified regarding the effect of McFadden’s home and community life on his development. 1. Failure to Call Additional Lay Witnesses McFadden now claims counsel should have called four additional lay witnesses who lived in Pine Lawn: Kirkman-Clark, Elwyn Walls, Sean Nichols, and Willabea Blackburn. At the postconviction hearing, they testified that Pine Lawn culture consists 17 of gangs, drugs, and violence. This testimony would have been cumulative to the testimony of the seven lay witnesses and Dr. Draper. “Counsel is not ineffective for not presenting cumulative evidence.” Deck, 381 S.W.3d at 351. Further, these witnesses would have been subject to potentially damaging cross-examination regarding McFadden’s gang involvement and responsibility in creating the violent culture. Accordingly, McFadden failed to demonstrate that, had the additional witnesses been called to testify, their testimonies would have outweighed the potentially aggravating evidence elicited by the State. For these reasons, the circuit court did not clearly err in failing to find counsel ineffective for not calling these additional lay witnesses. 2. Failure to Call Dr. White McFadden also claims counsel were ineffective in failing to call Dr. Norman White, or another sociologist with similar expertise, to testify regarding how the cultural environment in which McFadden grew up impacted his development. McFadden also argues counsel were ineffective in failing to provide Dr. Draper with Dr. White’s report. Postconviction counsel asked Dr. White to study Pine Lawn to gain an understanding of McFadden’s life as an adolescent in the 1980s and 1990s. Dr. White reviewed Dr. Draper’s report, watched a video compilation of interviews addressing life in Pine Lawn, read Pine Lawn newspaper clippings, and interviewed Pine Lawn residents. Although Dr. White’s testimony would have further supported the defense’s mitigation theory, Dr. White was unable to opine how growing up in Pine Lawn actually impacted McFadden’s decision to murder Victim. Because the defense presented ample 18 evidence of the Pine Lawn culture and its effects on McFadden’s childhood and development – including testimony by another expert, Dr. Draper – additional expert testimony on this topic would have been of limited assistance. See Deck, 381 S.W.3d at 351. As for McFadden’s claim that counsel were ineffective in failing to provide Dr. Draper with Dr. White’s report, counsel testified at the postconviction hearing that Dr. Draper never indicated she needed additional information to inform her opinion. Further, the record indicates that, even if Dr. Draper had reviewed Dr. White’s report prior to testifying at trial, her testimony would not have substantively changed. At trial, Dr. Draper testified the violent environment in which McFadden lived impaired his ability to make decisions. Similarly, at the postconviction hearing, Dr. Draper testified the environmental factors identified by Dr. White, such as crime and violence in the community, had an adverse effect on McFadden’s development. Dr. Draper’s opinion that McFadden used his free will to kill multiple people did not change after reviewing Dr. White’s report. Because McFadden failed to demonstrate that introduction of Dr. White’s findings into evidence – either through Dr. White’s own testimony or through furnishing his report to Dr. Draper – would have produced a viable defense, the circuit court did not clearly err in failing to find counsel ineffective for not introducing Dr. White’s findings into evidence.