Missouri Supreme Court upholds conviction of man in killing of highway patrol trooper

The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday affirmed the conviction of a Van Buren, Missouri, man who had sought to set aside his 2009 conviction and death sentence for killing a Missouri State Highway Patrol sergeant.

In an opinion, written by Judge George W. Draper III and joined by five judges, the court found Circuit Judge Kelly Parker did not err in denying relief to Lance Shockley’s various claims raised in his most recent appeal.

In that appeal, the 42-year-old had challenged Parker’s July 2017 denial of his request for post-conviction relief.

Parker made his ruling following an evidentiary hearing in which Shockley claimed ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, as well as violation of his constitutional rights.

Shockley is on death row at the Potosi Correctional Center after being convicted in March 2009 in Carter County of felony first-degree murder in connection with the March 20, 2005, death of Sgt. Carl Dewayne Graham Jr.

A 12-year veteran of the highway patrol, Graham was found shot to death in the driveway of his Van Buren home. He was still in uniform, having just completed his shift.

Shockley’s alleged motive for killing Graham was a Nov. 26, 2004, fatal crash that left Jeffrey R. Bayless dead. Shockley was suspected of being the driver and fleeing the scene. Graham was investigating the death.

In the opinion, Draper wrote Shockley raised four points related to the conduct of one juror who had authored a crime-based, semi-autobiographical book.

At a break during the jury selection process, the juror reportedly approached the bench to inform the judge he failed to mention his son was a Springfield, Missouri, police officer and that he was a published author.

Neither the defense nor state reportedly questioned the man, who served as foreman during Shockley’s guilt phase of his trial, about being an author.

After learning of the book’s contents during the penalty phase of the trial, Shockley’s trial attorneys asked for a mistrial and for the juror to be removed and questioned about the book.

“At the evidentiary hearing, (the juror) testified he did not hold the personal beliefs in the book,” Draper wrote. “(Shockley) presented no evidence to contradict (his) testimony.”

In his appeal, Shockley also argued the juror/author brought copies of his novel with him and shared them with fellow jurors and court personnel despite the judge telling jurors they were prohibited from having books or movies about crimes during the trial.

The “record,” according to the court’s opinion, supports Parker’s finding the juror’s conduct “amounted to miscommunication about what was appropriate rather than intentional misconduct.”

It also was the court’s opinion, Shockley’s attorneys were not ineffective for failing to strike another juror who indicated he would be more inclined to give the death penalty for the murder of a law enforcement officer.

Draper wrote the record did not show that juror would not consider the entire range of punishment, apply the proper burden of proof or otherwise follow the judge’s instruction.

Judge Laura Denvir Stith wrote a dissenting opinion.

Stith disagreed with the majority’s opinion Shockley’s attorneys were not ineffective for failing to question the juror about his book and failing to call other jurors in support of his motion for a new trail.

According to Stith, the post-conviction hearing demonstrated Shockley’s attorneys had “no valid strategic reason for failing to (question the juror) and for choosing not to question other jurors about when and how they were exposed to his violent novel. ...

“I would find both failures constituted ineffective assistance that may have affected the outcome of the trial.”

Stith said the court should set aside Shockley’s conviction and death sentence.