Washington v. Kelly

Post-conviction relief is warranted when there has been a "substantial denial" of a petitioner's "rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void." ORS 138.530(1)(a).

Petitioner appealed the denial of post-conviction relief following his conviction for aggravated murder. He argued that his trial counsel provided inadequate assistance by failing to investigate the possibility that someone else, specifically his stepbrother, had killed the victim. He also challenged the admissibility of a confession, claimed the state had failed to disclose evidence, and contended that his trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence. Post-conviction relief is warranted when there has been a "substantial denial" of a petitioner's "rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void." ORS 138.530(1)(a). The Court found that it was reasonable for trial counsel not to pursue the theory that Petitioner’s stepbrother was the killer. The Court reasoned that Petitioner had not shown that obtaining police reports related to the stepbrother’s suicide would have altered the defense strategy or affected the outcome. The Court found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the undisclosed police reports would have led to a different verdict. The Court reasoned that the reports had no significant bearing on the case, as they involved incidents unrelated to the petitioner or the victim. The Court affirmed the post-conviction court's decision, holding that Petitioner’s claims were without merit.