Huiett v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 28 March 2014
• Docket Number: NO. 2012-CA-001824-MR,2012-CA-001824-MR
• Parties: DEBORAH HUIETT APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

DEBORAH HUIETT APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

NO. 2012-CA-001824-MR

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

RENDERED: MARCH 28, 2014

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE ROBERT W. MCGINNIS, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 02-CR-00280

OPINION

REVERSING AND REMANDING

BEFORE: ACREE, CHIEF JUDGE; MAZE AND STUMBO, JUDGES.

ACREE, CHIEF JUDGE: Appellant, Deborah Huiett appeals from the order of the Boone Circuit Court, entered on August 2, 2012, denying her motions for relief under RCr¹ 11.42, and CR² 60.02, and for post-conviction testing of DNA evidence. We affirm as to the denial of relief pursuant to RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02,but reverse and remand the case to the trial court to consider Huiett's motion for DNA testing in light of the recently amended KRS³ 422.285 and this Court's interpretation of the amended statute in Virgil v. Commonwealth, 403 S.W.3d 577 (Ky. App. 2013).

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In April 2000, Detective Todd Kenner investigated the discovery of human skeletal remains lying at the bottom of Mile Hill in Boone County, Kentucky. The remains were placed in a blue garment bag manufactured between 1993 and 1995 by the High Sierra clothing company and only available for sale in the area at one department store - Lazarus.

Forensic analysis determined the remains were of a Caucasian female with blonde hair. Using dental records, police identified the remains as Tina Rae Stevens, who had disappeared during the summer of 1999. Stevens' death was ruled a homicide due to knife wounds to the right clavicle. The body was missing its skull, a piece of spinal cord, and nine fingertips. While Detective Kenner had no initial suspects, investigators found three brown hairs inside the garment bag that were not a match to Stevens.

During the investigation, Detective Kenner developed two separate theories about Stevens' murder: either (1) Stevens was murdered by her former boyfriend, Thomas Jansen, or (2) Stevens was murdered by Huiett and Huiett's boyfriend, Leonard Day.

Jansen became a suspect early in the case after Detective Kenner received a tip from Stevens' daughter. Jansen dated Stevens near in time to her disappearance; their relationship was violent and tumultuous. In subsequent interviews, Jansen's other former girlfriends alleged that Jansen owned knives, often spoke of killing people, and had a penchant for violent sex. Jansen had also recently abandoned his car, a 1985 Lincoln Continental, said to contain a set of women's clothing that may have belonged to Stevens.

Detective Kenner traced Jansen's car to a local garage and discovered blood on the driver's side door jamb. Forensic investigators took seven samples of blood from the car. Detective Kenner later confronted Jansen with these details in an interview. Jansen denied any involvement, claiming that the blood "probably was [Stevens'], but he was being set up." Later DNA testing of two of the seven blood samples confirmed it was not Stevens' blood.

Still hoping to elicit an incriminating response from Jansen, Detective Kenner employed a police interrogation tactic - he told Jansen he had traced the garment bag containing Stevens' remains back to Jansen; in fact, he had not. Detective Kenner only had information that Jansen's mother may have owned that type of garment bag in the past. Jansen responded that the bag was "probably the garment bag his mom had given him for Christmas."

While Detective Kenner was investigating Stevens' last known whereabouts, a second theory emerged: Huiett murdered Stevens in a jealous rage after discovering that Stevens was having an affair with Day. Acquaintancescharacterized Huiett as extremely possessive of Day; she had threatened other romantic rivals and was also known to carry a knife. Day's coworker, Robert Walker, told Detective Kenner that Day, Huiett, and Stevens had all stayed at the Suburban Lodge - a local hotel - sometime around May 28, 1999, while Day worked a construction site near Mile Hill. Walker also said that Stevens and Day had dated in the past and that the two still had feelings for one another. According to Walker, Stevens and Day went to a room together at the Suburban Lodge for several hours, unbeknownst to Huiett. That night, Day and Huiett were evicted from the Suburban Lodge after other lodge residents reported a loud disturbance from a nearby room; they had heard Huiett screaming and making loud threats to kill Day. Day's coworker, Paul Gabbard, later told Detective Kenner that he encountered Huiett that night and remembered her saying that "she knew Leonard was there with Tina and when she found him, she was going to kill Tina and make Leonard watch."

After Huiett and Day's eviction, housekeepers discovered their room filthy and damaged, but while it "appeared that there had been a good fight in there," the bed was relatively neat and had been made using sheets that did not belong to the hotel. When housekeepers stripped the bed, they discovered a large stain on the mattress they believed was a blood stain, prompting them to throw it out. Housekeepers also recalled that, before Huiett and Day were evicted, they had seen a "dark blue, almost black" garment bag hanging in the closet in that room.

Detective Kenner later uncovered a bevy of witnesses - ranging from former lovers to jailhouse acquaintances - who heard Huiett and Day admit to the murder. Witnesses said Huiett openly bragged about killing Stevens, claiming Stevens "got everything she deserved" and that Huiett wished she had saved Stevens' skull to use as a candle holder. Day allegedly told a former girlfriend, Pam Hendrix, that he and Huiett had "cut Tina's head and fingers off." According to Hendrix, when she told Day she heard rumors that Day and Hueitt "threw [Stevens] in a plastic bag and threw her in the river," he corrected her, saying it "was a dark blue suit bag and it was about a mile from where they worked."

On April 24, 2002, Detective Kenner arrested Huiett at her workplace for the murder of Tina Rae Stevens; as he handcuffed her, she "told her employer she was being arrested for killing that bitch."⁴

Police submitted hair samples obtained from Hueitt, Day, and Jansen for microscopic comparison with the brown hairs found in the garment bag. Experts determined one hair was microscopically similar to Day's hair, but DNA testing confirmed it was not. None of the hairs were determined microscopically similar to Jansen or Hueitt so they did not undergo DNA testing.

Hueitt and Day were charged with Stevens' murder and convicted in separate jury trials. Rhonda Lause, a trial attorney with the Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy, represented Huiett at trial. Lause's defense strategy focused on attacking the Commonwealth's lack of physical evidence implicating Huiett,and challenging the Commonwealth's timetable of events leading up to and following the murder. Lause argued that it was impossible for Huiett to kill, dismember, and dispose of Stevens within the timeframe alleged by the Commonwealth. A jury convicted Huiett of murder and tampering with physical evidence in 2005; on appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in 2007. Huiett v. Commonwealth, 2007 WL 4793688, No. 2005-SC-000643-MR (Ky. June 21, 2007, as modified January 24, 2008).

Huiett timely sought post-conviction relief from her judgment of conviction under RCr. 11.42 and CR. 60.02; Huiett also moved for additional DNA testing of hair samples and blood swabs taken from the garment bag and Jansen's car. The Boone Circuit Court held a two-day evidentiary hearing on the motions. On August 1, 2012, the Court denied all Huiett's motions.⁵ Huiett now appeals that denial. We address each of Huiett's claims in turn.

III. Analysis

A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Huiett alleges her Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to deficiencies in her counsel's trial strategy, preparation, and performance. Specifically, Huiett asserts three errors: (1) counsel failed to present sufficient evidence at trial that Thomas Jansen was an alternate suspect, (2) counsel failed to investigate potential witnesses before trial, and (3) counsel failed to impeach police testimony thatlinked her to the murder. We review de novo whether counsel was ineffective. Brown v. Commonwealth, 253 S.W.3d 490, 500 (Ky. 2008).

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant "the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." U.S. Const. amend. VI. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Sixth Amendment to include "the right to the effective assistance of counsel.'" Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2063, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) (quoting McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771, n. 14, 90 S. Ct.1441, 1449, n. 14, 25 L. Ed. 2d 763 (1970)); accord Gall v. Commonwealth, 702 S.W.2d 37 (Ky. 1985). To prove her counsel ineffective, Huiett must establish "that counsel's performance was deficient" and "that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064. Counsel's performance is deficient if it falls "below an objective standard of reasonableness" measured "under prevailing professional norms." Id. at 688, 104 S. Ct. at 2064-65. However, in evaluating counsel's alleged deficiency, we "must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct [fell] within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." Id. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065; Premo v. Moore, 131 S. Ct. 733, 739, 178 L. Ed. 2d 649 (2011); Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 124, 129 S. Ct. 1411, 1420, 173 L. Ed. 2d 251 (2009). We must also resist "the distorting effects of hindsight" and, instead "evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct at 2066.

If we deem counsel's performance deficient, we must then determine whether a reasonable probability exists that "but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been...