granting the petitioner an evidentiary hearing despite "numerous legitimate questions concerning [the petitioner’s] claim” and noting in the face of inconsistencies in the evidence "that is precisely the procedure established by this Court in Chase, which allows the State, as well as Doss, to offer evidence in support of their respective arguments”
How later courts described this case
- granting the petitioner an evidentiary hearing despite "numerous legitimate questions concerning [the petitioner’s] claim” and noting in the face of inconsistencies in the evidence "that is precisely the procedure established by this Court in Chase, which allows the State, as well as Doss, to offer evidence in support of their respective arguments”
- "Counsel's minimum duty is to interview potential witnesses and to make an independent investigation of the facts and circumstances of the case."
- The law is well settled in this State that any person who is present, aiding and abetting another in the commission of a crime, is equally guilty with the principal offender
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
¶ 63. As I disagree that Doss is entitled to proceed in the trial court on the issue of mental retardation, I must respectfully dissent in part. The affidavit submitted *Page 198
from Dr. Merikangas concludes that neuropsychiatric evaluation is necessary. However, the State notes the numerous contradictions and inconsistencies between the version of Doss's life provided by Doss and his family and that provided in the 1988 University of Mississippi report upon which Dr. Merikangas relied in his affidavit. As noted by the majority and argued by the State, in 1988 Doss did not allege "a horrible, dangerous, traumatic experience" growing up in Chicago as he now alleges. While, the majority applies the correct legal authority, it reaches the wrong conclusion. The majority correctly states on the one hand that "the State raises numerous legitimate questions concerning Doss's claim." However, the majority's conclusion to grant Doss leave to proceed in the trial court on this issue is flawed. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.