Case Summary for September 19, 2012

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for September 19, 2012

THE FOLLOWING DOCKET SUMMARIES ARE PREPARED BY THE COURT'S STAFF FOR THE INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE OF THE READER. THE SUMMARIES MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AND DO NOT REFLECT ANY OPINION OF THE COURT ON THE MERITS OF A CASE. COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, COURT EN BANC DIVISION. SUMMARIES ARE UNOFFICIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE QUOTED OR CITED.

Attached to the following docketed cases are electronic copies of briefs filed by the parties. These electronic briefs have been converted to PDF to accommodate various word processors. If you do not already have Acrobat reader, which is necessary to open the PDFs, you may obtain it free at the Adobe website. (A set of free tools that allow visually disabled users to read documents in Adobe PDF format is available from access.adobe.com.) These briefs do not reflect any opinion of the Court about the appropriateness of the format of the briefs or the merits of the case, nor are they official court records. Copies of all briefs filed with the Court are available at the Supreme Court Building in the court en banc division.

The attachments below may not reflect all briefs filed with the Court, the complete filing or the format of the original filing. Appendices and other attachments generally will not be posted here. To see what documents have been filed in a particular case, visit Case.net.

DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

9:30 a.m. Wednesday, Sept. 19, 2012

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC92455
Missouri Roundtable for Life, Inc., Frederic N. Sauer, Missouri Right to Life, and Pam Fichter v. State of Missouri
Cole County
Severance of a senate bill provision

Listen to the oral argument:

The state was represented during arguments by Solicitor General James Layton of the attorney general's office in Jefferson City, and the Missouri taxpayers were represented by Stephen Clark of The Clark Law Firm LLC in St. Louis.

In 2011, the legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 7, which repeals 11 current statutes and enacts 14 new ones. Section A of the bill contains the substantive language regarding repeal and enactment of the statutes. Section B of the bill states that the effectiveness of the bill is contingent on the governor signing into law Senate Bill No. 8 regarding taxation, in contradiction of the constitutional standard time period of 90 days. The legislature did not pass SB 8, and state agencies began implementing the provisions of SB 7 after the 90-day period had passed. Two Missouri organizations comprised of Missouri taxpayers as well as two individual taxpayers sued the state, asking the circuit court to prevent implementation of SB 7and to reverse actions already taken. The circuit court found that section B was unconstitutional, that it could not be severed from section A and, therefore, that the entire bill was unconstitutional. The court prohibited further implementation of SB 7 and ordered the state to reverse actions that its agencies had taken actions pursuant to the bill. The state appeals.

The state argues the circuit court erred in striking SB 7 in its entirety. It contends the court should have severed section B instead because severance is appropriate in this situation. The state concedes section B is unconstitutional because it infringes on the governor’s constitutional authority to sign a bill into law. It argues the purpose of section B was solely to change the constitutional 90-day standard for enactment of bills. The state also concedes that section B of the bill violates the single-subject requirement of the constitution by adding a second subject to the bill. The state argues, however, that section B can be severed from section A, leaving section A intact and in effect. It contends that section A is complete and could be executed independently of section B.

The taxpayers respond that the circuit court correctly refused to sever section B of SB 7 but incorrectly found the bill unconstitutional. They argue section B does not violate either the governor’s authority to sign a bill into law or the single-subject requirement of the constitution. The taxpayers contend section B is a valid, effective and constitutional exercise of the legislature’s powers. They assert that because the contingency in section B is no longer able to occur, the court correctly invalidated SB 7 in its entirety. The taxpayers argue a court only should sever a section when it can be proved the legislature would have passed the bill without the challenged section. They contend the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislature would have passed SB 7 without section B.

The Missouri Biotechnology Association argues, as a friend of the Court, that the circuit court erred in finding section B could not be severed. It contends the circuit court erroneously interpreted and applied the law in finding the legislature would have passed SB 7 without section B. The association asserts section B is not essential to the purpose of the provisions of SB 7. It argues section A is not dependent on section B and could be executed in accordance with legislative intent.

SC91787
Johnny A. Johnson v. State of Missouri
St. Louis County
Post-conviction relief in a death penalty case

Listen to the oral argument:

Johnson was represented during arguments by Bob Lundt of the public defender's office in St. Louis, and the state was represented by Shaun Mackelprang of the attorney general's office in Jefferson City.

Johnny Johnson was charged with first-degree murder, armed criminal action, kidnapping and attempted forcible rape for the July 26, 2002 bludgeoning death of the daughter of the man with whom Johnson was staying. At trial, Johnson denied that he had deliberated killing the girl. Trial counsel argued Johnson’s diminished capacity due to mental illness – specifically schizoaffective disorder – caused command hallucinations. The state’s expert witness testified that Johnson was capable of deliberation and that any hallucinations may have been caused instead by methamphetamine. Johnson’s witnesses testified as to his mental illness and family history of mental illness. He was convicted as charged, and sentenced to death. This Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. State v. Johnson, 207 S.W.3d 24 (Mo. banc 2006). Johnson subsequently sought post-conviction relief, claiming in part that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to submit evidence of his brain damage, for failing to call a particular teacher as a witness and for failing to rebut the state’s expert witness regarding hallucinations. Following an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court overruled Johnson’s motion. Johnson appeals.

Johnson argues the circuit court erred in overruling his claim that his counsel was ineffective. He contends counsel did not seek evidence of brain damage and neuropsychological impairments despite the fact that both experts recommended testing Johnson for brain impairment. Johnson asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, that his rights to due process were violated and that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to investigate the brain damage. He argues counsel should have presented testimony from his former special education teacher because she witnessed Johnson’s abuse and neglect as a child. Johnson contends this teacher witnessed more than the teachers who testified at trial because she had noted possible neurological problems and had called the child abuse hotline to report that she believed Johnson was suffering abuse. He asserts counsel should have presented supporting evidence that his statements were not voluntary and that he was unable to waive his rights knowingly and intelligently due to his mental illness. Johnson argues counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the state’s expert witness’ suggestion that Johnson’s actions resulted from substance abuse and not mental illness. Johnson asserts the jury was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to provide evidence of his mental illness and inability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. He argues the jury likely would have imposed a life sentence instead had it been provided evidence of his mental illness. He contends the circuit court erred in overruling this particular claim because its findings regarding his other claims were insufficient for meaningful review on appeal.

The state responds the trial court did not err in overruling Johnson’s claim that counsel was ineffective. It argues the record reflects reasonable trial strategy supporting counsel’s decision not to conduct further evaluation of Johnson for brain damage. The state contends counsel was not ineffective in choosing not to call the special education teacher as a witness. It asserts that counsel put sufficient effort into investigating Johnson’s childhood and education and that Johnson told counsel not to contact the special education teacher. The state argues counsel both investigated and called as witnesses multiple teachers and other school members. It contends counsel was not ineffective for not presenting evidence of Johnson’s mental illness that might have affected his waiver of his rights, given that counsel believed part of the confessions would help Johnson’s case. The state further responds that the trial court correctly overruled Johnson’s claim about his counsel not challenging the expert testimony that Johnson’s actions resulted from substance abuse. The state asserts that Johnson failed to preserve this claim for review.